The Trinity and Marriage
I have tried to cover, and comment on, many topics related to the current gender debate in the Church; but one thing that I have not commented about previously is the association that some make between the relationships within the Trinity and the relationship between a husband and wife.
Some Complementarians argue that, while Jesus and God the Father are essentially equal in being, Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. This view has been termed Subordinationism.[1] These Complementarians go on to say that men and women are also essentially equal in being, but that women are, and will be, eternally subordinate to men. I am not persuaded by their arguments.
Despite disagreeing with the conclusions Complementarians draw from the (supposed) subordination of Christ, I have purposefully stayed out of any debates about it. The following are the reasons I distance myself from the gender debates based on Subordinationism.
(1) The debate is biased. The presentation of Scriptural investigation, surveys of the Christologies of early and classic Christian theologians, and the ensuing debate about whether or not Jesus Christ is eternally subordinate – when it is given by people who have a strong interest in either the subordination or liberation of women – is usually skewed and not entirely free from bias. This bias will hinder a true understanding and appreciation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2) The Trinity is a profound mystery. While some of us may think we have some idea about the nature of Triune Godhead – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I believe that we are all in for stunning surprise when we are finally able to see God as he really is. Furthermore, I don’t think that anyone can possibly know what the (supposed) subordination of Jesus means in the eternal scheme of things. (I don’t think we have a true comprehension of what 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 [given in endnote 2] really entails.) Of course the mystery of the Trinity shouldn’t stop us from trying to seek a greater understanding of the nature of the Triune Godhead. But when this pursuit is done with an underlying agenda of trying to prove the status and relationships of men and women, we are heading away from pure and true theology.
(3) There is a danger of arrogance in arguing emphatically about Jesus’ status. Jesus humbly condescended to come to earth in order to live as a human being and in order to die as a redemptive sacrifice. However, I think we are in danger of arrogance if we insist that Jesus continues to condescend himself and function as a subordinate member of the Godhead. Furthermore, the Church has continually failed to understand Jesus’ perspective on hierarchy and subordination in human relations; so how can we possibly understand hierarchy and subordination in the Divine, assuming it even exists?[3]
(4) The Trinity is not a model for marriage. Finally, it is very important to acknowledge that nowhere in Scripture does it suggest, or even hint, that the relationships between the members of the Godhead are an illustration of the marriage relationship. While both men and women are made in the image of the Triune God, I simply cannot see that a case can be made to use any of the relationships within the Trinity as a model for marriage. And so it is worrying when people think that husbands somehow represent God the Father, and wives somehow represent Jesus Christ (or occasionally, the Holy Spirit.)
The Scriptures do give us an illustration of marriage. In Ephesians 5:21-33 Paul tells us that the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church (and not God the Father and Jesus) reveals an aspect of marriage. The loving, supportive and close association of Christ and the Church is a model for the loving, supportive and close relationship between husband and wife. [More on this here.]
Conclusion
The Complementarian argument – that Jesus is equal with God the Father but subordinate to him, so women should be content with being “equal” but subordinate to men – is bogus! I think that by combining the notion of the eternal subordination of Jesus with the notion of the subordination of women we are doing neither Christology nor Christian marriages any favours. I am particularly concerned with what affect these debates are having on our Christology. So, for all these reasons, I am staying out of any debates about so-called “Subordinationism”.
Further Reading:
Various papers and information on the “Trinity and Subordinationism” debate here.
The Trinity Statement website here.
Complementarian articles on Subordinationism on the CBMW’s website here.
Endnotes
[1] Complementarians hold to the view that men and women are “equal in being” but “unequal in role”; a view that I fail to see as logical. While Complementarians believe that men and women are “equal but different”, I maintain that men and women are “different and equal – no buts”.
[2] 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, NASB:
. . . then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all thing in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “ All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
[3] I cannot in good conscience align myself with some Christian egalitarians who state that the relationships within the Trinity are of complete mutual, reciprocal submission. I don’t think the Scriptures give us enough information or insight about this. What if, for instance, the members of the Godhead are not equal as we understand equality? I imagine that the divine relationships within the Trinity defy labels such as: hierarchy, subordination or equality, etc.
Related Articles
Monogenes: Only Begotten?
Proving that Jesus is God from Old Testament Scripture
Paul’s Main Point in Ephesians 5:22-33
(1) Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:1-6
(2) Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:7-8
Kephalē and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters
A Suitable Helper
Submission in Marriage
Tags: Biblical equality, CBMW, Christian marriage, Christology, complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eternal subordination, submission, submission in marriage, Subordinationism, Trinity
This entry was posted on Friday, October 28th, 2011 at 10:16 am and is filed under Christology, Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Marriage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
There's been 15 comments so far...
Another misfire in the “eternal subordination” argument is that it has a devastating effect on the nature of parent/child relations.
Our children are “on loan” to us, until they reach maturity, and increasingly become independent. The view that, because we’re the parents, we have the right to ask for lifelong subordination from our children, is also bogus.
The truth is, any good and loving father (and, by analogy, the Heavenly Father, also), indeed does subordinate himself to his wife and children, reciprocally, in order to care for them and provide for their needs.
He is not free to pretend he’s not a father, has no duties towards his children, nor any need to listen to or ever defer to them. Quite the opposite; a good father is in mutual subordination along with his wife and children.
Heirarchical power struggles are inevitable in any other model.
So I, for one, do believe that the nature of the relationality within the triune God is at the root of all truly healthy human relationships. Mutual subordination is modeled within it, and even, believe it or not, towards us. The God Who could order us around instead chooses to model mutual subordination.
Thanks for this, Guy.
I fully believe that in all healthy human relationships, especially in families, there is a lot of reciprocal submission going on.
I do understand your last paragraph. However I just can’t see that we have enough to go on, from Scripture, when coming to assumptions about the relationships within the Godhead; assumptions as to whether these divine relationships are characterised by either mutual submission or hierachy and subordination. (I hope you don’t mind that I use the word “assumptions”.)
The biggest problem these theologians have is the “three-fold subjection” of Christ. If Christ has been subject from eternity (1 Cor 11), was made subject at incarnation (Phil 2) and will be made subject at the end of time (1 cor 15), how does anyone reconcile these three? it is impossible, leaving us with only one option: Christ subjected himself to the Father’s will during his incarnation, for as a human, he was as bound to follow God as the rest of us. Contrary to us, he did it perfectly, which gives the rest of us hope. Here’s the beauty of the Gospel: that the One, who didn’t have to obey, became obedient in order to save his sisters and brothers from the dominion of sin. THAT example is what we are told to imitate, not a human hierarchy based on a false assessment of worth. The mind of Christ is the mind of a servant – not a lord.
Thanks, Marg –the gist of my comments were to suggest caution against assuming otherwise, and to get folks to at least explore the Biblical evidence for mutual submission within the Triune God.
The ramifications for interpersonal, marital and family dynamics is too great to simply allow others to assume a one-way subordinationism unchallenged.
In the case of the Triune God, I don’t imagine such stark differences between Persons as to make the matter of much import, frankly. But as a model for our relationships, it seems hugely important.
I also see the verses in I Corinthians 15:24-28 as suggestive of the eventual death of warring heirarchies, and the reconciliation of all things within God. I’d characterize the goal as one of “organism” rather than heirarchy, where individualism is not stifled, but appreciated in all its diversity.
The God Who made us approached us originally in a garden, to walk with us in the cool of the day. Only as we became more distant and alienated did we come to the imagery of a throne. My hope is that God is inclined to restore such natural friendship with us as was His original intention.
I believe God delights in our individuality as well as in our communality, otherwise it makes no sense for Him to urge us on to maturity.
My two cents… : )
Susanna, I completely agree with you that we are called to imitate Jesus Christ’s humility and odedience to God the Father; and not get caught up in some sort of human hierarchy.
Guy, thanks for clarifying. When I read 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 I get a similar impression: that hierarchies and divisions will be erradicated; and in their place, a unified organism.
And I agree that we must challenge the idea of one-sided subordination in family relationships, especially between husband and wife.
I agree that the Subordinationism is not a faithful reading of Scripture.
There are various ways Scripture refers to relationships in the Godhead. One of these is that there is one will for God (God’s will) and another is that the Father, Word, and Spirit submit to each other. I see these as equivalent metaphors.
Marg, I agree with everything you’ve said, except that I don’t think a “type” and an “example” are the same thing at all. I think an “example” is a picture for us to follow, whereas a “type” is a hinting or foreshadowing in the Old Creation of something to be fulfilled in the New Creation. For instance, Adam is a type of Christ, but certainly not an example of Christ. Again, Christ’s laying down of his life to glorify the church is an example for our marriages to follow, while our marriages are not an example for Christ and the church to follow– but human marriage could be a type or foreshadowing of the divine unity which will one day occur between Christ and the church at His return.
I do agree that the Trinity is not a model for marriage, and I think we have to be very careful in reading human relationships back onto the divine interactions within the Godhead. God and Christ are called Father and Son, but human sons are not the “word” of their fathers, through whom their fathers make everything they make! The Godhead is beyond human relationship and human understanding. I really like what you’ve said here in that regard!
Kristen, I was trying to come up with a word to explain “type” for those who are unfamiliar with the concept of typology; and “example” was the word, closest in meaning, that I could come up. I know it is inadequate. Can you think of a better term? (I linked to you because I like the way you explain “type” and typology.)
Don, The “Subordination of Jesus” debate, when you bring marriage into it, is faulty and loaded whichever way you look at it.
I appreciate your kind words, Marg, and I’ll try to explain. You said:
“Finally, it is very important to acknowledge that nowhere in Scripture does it suggest, or even hint, that the relationships between the members of the Godhead are a “type” (or example) of the marriage relationship. While both men and women are made in the image of the Triune God, I simply cannot see that a case can be made to use any of the relationships within the Trinity as a model for marriage. (It is especially worrying when people assign husbands as representative of God the Father, and wives as representative of Jesus Christ, or occasionally, the Holy Spirit.)”
Here I would simply use the word “example” or “illustration,” because that’s what you’re talking about. The Trinity is not shown to be an example or illustration of marriage in the Scriptures.
Then you say:
“The Scriptures do give us a “type” (example) of marriage.”
Here, I would say, “The Scriptures do give an example for marriage. In Ephesians 5:21-33 Paul tells us that the relationship between the Jesus Christ and the Church (and not God the Father and Jesus) reveals an aspect of marriage.”
Again, when you’re talking about what the Trinity or the Christ-church relationship does, or does not, teach us about marriage, you are talking about “example” or “illustration.”
But typology is backwards directionally from illustration or example. Typology goes from the human to the divine; example, as you’re using it above, goes from the divine to the human.
If you want to go the other direction, and talk about what marriage shows about Christ and the church, then you’re talking about typology. Marriage might be a “hint” or “foreshadowing” of Christ’s future relationship with the church, when He glorifies the church so that we will be “like Him, for we will see Him as He is.” But marriage is not an “example” of Christ and the church– it’s the other way around. We should look at Christ and the church (according to the specific picture painted in Eph 5) to see what our marriages should look like. We shouldn’t look at marriage to see what Christ’s relationship with the church should look like. We might see in marriage a hint of something divine yet to come (a “type”) but not an example of the divine. The human institution of marriage is simply too human to properly show the divine.
Does that make better sense?
OK, I get it now.
Thanks Kristen. I’ve edited my article accordingly.
Marg, I agree wholeheartedly with your hesitation to declare co-equality among the members of the Trinity. I don’t think such a position is at all necessary. IMO it is sufficient to point out the faulty assumptions in the Subordinationism camp.
[...] The Trinity and Marriage [...]
[...] The Trinity and Marriage [...]
On the aspects of possible mutual submission in the Godhead, one way the relationships are mentioned in Scripture is as “God’s will” which is one will and not three wills competing somehow. The way the comps address the one will question in marriage is to give a trump card to the husband. And egals address it via mutual submission, so it is a reasonable question as to whether the Godhead is EVER described in terms of mutual submission in the Bible. I believe it is, but it is done in a way that is less obvious than the submission of Jesus to the Father, for example.
Yes, it’s not about one person’s will and the other(s) submitting to it.
This is a great point, Don.
Leave a Comment