I’m learning lots too! Hasn’t God has richly blessed us with Matt’s brain and knowledge of past theologians?

I’m enjoying this thread too. Although only dipping, I feel saturated.

A question, Matt. You have mentioned more than once the inadequacy of one particular analogy: husband tells wife what to do, she obeys.

Can you tell us more? Where/how is this used? I have never really heard this, especially in the way you express it. I wonder (forgive me!) if you have expressed it more strongly than any proponents would. For example, I wonder if it might be put by some as ‘husband leading in love.’ Waiting for further enlightenment ...

Another question, for any. I came across comment recently that marriage is not a biblical image for Trinity, but for for Christ & the church. (It was in an English reaction to some writing by Jeffrey John who supported same-sex relationships by linking marriage->Trinity->all are God->same sex is OK.) Forget about the context. Is there merit in the comment?

** Say hey, this post is for Christ, but I also want to quickly answer Andy’s question.  I live in two places: Whitefish and Missoula, both of which are in Montana.  Whitefish is a little paradise sort of town in Northwest USA, about 60 miles from the Canadian border.  Missoula is sort of a “mini-Berkeley” (= “extremely liberal"), and it is here that I attend school.
Okay, now on to Chris’s questions.

Can you tell us more? Where/how is this used? I have never really heard this, especially in the way you express it. I wonder (forgive me!) if you have expressed it more strongly than any proponents would.

** First, I’ve heard it used on certain occasions from different people, and yes, it is true that those persons (who accept the analog) never, insofar as I’ve seen, stated it as I’m stating it here.  But the point is this: that is how those who disapprove of the analogy tend to “take” it.
Let me give an example: when trying to explain the Trinity, there are a number of analogies that we could use.  Take a famous one: according to some, the Trinity can be compared to “water, ice, and steam.” The problem for many would be that this seems to imply modalism.  And imagine what would happen if those who used the analogy were not quick to point out that they are aware of its weak spots, and use other analogies as well which in their turn emphasize the personhood of the divine persons.
I think the case is similar with the “husband-wife” analogy.  We ought to be quick to point to its weak spots (e.g., the disjunction of consciousness is quite different between a husband and a wife on the one hand, and the Father and the Son on the other) and ready to provide other analogies (the Son does the Father’s will as shine proceeds from the sun). 

For example, I wonder if it might be put by some as ‘husband leading in love.’ Waiting for further enlightenment ...

** I don’t doubt that this is true in many important respects, but at the same time, is it not the case that marriages aren’t that nice and simple?  Suppose a husband wants to enroll the child in a secular school that is close to home.  The wife, on the other hand, would prefer to enroll their child in a Christian school, though it would be a bit more troublesome to get the child to and from school on such days.
In this case, it is perfectly possible that the wife’s idea is, in fact, the better of the two; and even if the husband insists lovingly, the fact remains that the wife’s will is “checked” by her husband’s.  So what happens?  The wife’s will is frustrated, and she has to “submit”: “not my will, but yours be done.”
And if you take away all of the points in such an analogy which could not possibly be likened to the Trinity (e.g., there is no separation of wills between the persons), then I think that you’ll find that there are better ways to think about the persons interacting one with another.

Another question, for any. I came across comment recently that marriage is not a biblical image for Trinity, but for for Christ & the church. (It was in an English reaction to some writing by Jeffrey John who supported same-sex relationships by linking marriage->Trinity->all are God->same sex is OK.) Forget about the context. Is there merit in the comment?

** As for me, I actually think that marriage could very well be likened to the Trinity, but in this manner: let us not imagine the Trinity according to our own marriages, but rather, let us first perceive the Trinity as clearly as we can, and then model our marriages accordingly, insofar as possible.  (And no, I’m not married.) For example, in our world, all things are interdependent.  In order for me to be able to live, I must be nourished, literally, by other beings (e.g., we eat animals).  Now it is a good thing for all things to be interdependent, such that we all live by giving to others and receiving from others.  But I cannot help but to think that the form of this giving and receiving would be quite different were our world not fallen.  For example, I believe that God would prefer the “lion to lay down beside the lamb” rather than chasing it and inflicting pain on it when it catches it and eats it alive.
Similarly, though there is more than a grain of truth in saying that marriage is like the Trinity, I think that our reasoning should go from the Trinity to marriage, rather than from marriages as we now know them to the Trinity.  Hope that helps.
See John Paul II’s The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan for more.
Adios and all the best,
Matt

I really agree with that. The flow should always be from God to us in whose image we are. Especially in a fallen world where the naturalistic fallacy will get us every time.

However however…

If God has made us like himself and made analogues of himself in our relationships then its also a bit reflexive. I think I have learned more about how God feels about his Son and (incredibly) us since having children of my own. Not that my fatherhood is a reliable model(!) and needs to be informed and reformed by scripture but God really is the one from whom all fatherhood derives its name (Eph 3) and I presume that one of the reasons he constructed us this way was to help us understand him.

It must be significant that the first Person and second Person are called Father and Son. These aren’t just proper names - they point to some correlation between human reality and divine. Jesus seems to confirm it by speaking parables where he corresponds to the son and the Father to the father in the story.

The point here is I thnk that we have a restricted license to use human analogies.
(but not vassal king - what was I thinking? Crown Prince Regent however would have been just about right ;)

Having said that I would like to hear your thoughts on 1Cor 11:3 where there clearly is some connection between marriage and God.

** Say hey Andy,

If God has made us like himself and made analogues of himself in our relationships then its also a bit reflexive.

** I would say that the way this works is that the world has many values which suggest some higher meaning, but left to our own, we cannot discover it.  (I think of nature as a sort of “language of God” which we do not quite understand.)
The thing that brings our intuitions to perfection is the revelation of God in Christ (Jn. 1:18).  After having this revelation, we can then interpret the “language” of nature properly.
How, then, do we interpret the language of nature on things which are not quite clear, even in light of the revelation of Christ?  Scripture in light of Tradition, and these in light of what the Catholic Church is now saying (I’m a Roman Catholic, so I realize that this won’t appeal to all), and all of these sought out by the spirit in prayer, fasting, and meditation.

I presume that one of the reasons he constructed us this way was to help us understand him.

** While I agree that nature can help us to understand God, I insist that the reasoning should go the other way round.  After all, if we could gain sufficient knowledge of God via reflection on nature and ourselves, then the revelation in Christ would either be unnecessary, or such that it adds nothing to what we already know.
So, I come down firmly in affirming that we must start from God, and that he establishes the interpretive framework according to which our reflections toward him from nature must operate.

It must be significant that the first Person and second Person are called Father and Son. These aren’t just proper names - they point to some correlation between human reality and divine. Jesus seems to confirm it by speaking parables where he corresponds to the son and the Father to the father in the story.

** I think that I disagree with the direction you’re taking this, and to see why, I recommend sections III through V of my monograph on Athanasius.

(but not vassal king - what was I thinking? Crown Prince Regent however would have been just about right ;)

** I didn’t follow this :-) Wot ya mean?

Having said that I would like to hear your thoughts on 1Cor 11:3 where there clearly is some connection between marriage and God.

** As I’ve said, the contemporary gender debate isn’t something that really concerns me; I could quickly toss up Rom 1:18ff as proof that Scripture warns against moulding our thoughts of the divine by reference to creation.  Next, I’d point out that if we’re to reason from marriage to the Trinity, we must take into account that the one exists in a fallen condition (marriage), and the other doesn’t (Trinity).  Thus the particulars of the analogy would need to be modified accordingly (which implies that we’d need to perceive the Form itself of what marriages ought to be).
So, I don’t think that the analogy gets us anywhere at all.  Anything it does suggest beyond what I already know about the Trinity cannot be applied, for marriages exist in a fallen condition.  Everything in a marriage which can be applied, I already knew from the fact that the Father and Son love one another, and that the Son is to the Father as shine is to the sun.
Sorry if that was unclear, or if I’m taking you where you don’t want to go!  But I truly believe that this point is one that Giles and Co. are correct to stress.  (And let me qualify this by pointing out, again, that I’ve stated in no uncertain terms the points where I think Giles and Co. are wrong.)
Peace and all the best,
Matt

So Missoula is extremely liberal - you must fit right in ;-) ;-)
Is the liberalness in the town or the seminary(?)?

Again I think we are saying similar things. Neither of us seem to want to endorse “natural theology” but the eye of faith can begin to see (now marred) patterns embedded in created reality; especially when informed and licensed by the typological explanations of the Bible (and you would add tradition).

A quick distinction which you have drawn my attention to. I am not arguing that marriage is analogue of the Trinity.  I do think Eph 5 (and Rev 21 etc) see marriage as an analogue (or type) of the true Marriage between Christ and the church (cf Chris’s comments above). I also see human fatherhood and sonship as a created type or analogue (yes fallen, yes qualified) for the trinity.

And I think there is also some kind of typological connection (which I can’t quite grasp) between the Son qua Son and humans qua humans which allows the Son to become human and which makes all the potentiality of Ps 8 really turn out to be about Christ (but still about humanity) cf Heb 2:5-9.

Having said this there is some correspondance alluded to in 1Cor 11 (still waiting for your thoughts ;-)) - not an explicitly typological relationship but some similarity. Even the John of the Cross quote makes the connection (though at a slightly different point from 1Cor11).

Why Crown Prince Regent? Well a vassal king is one kingship in subjugation to another (and held that way by force), a crown Prince however is a single kingship but the king exercises his rule through his son and (natural) heir. I think it fits the Bible nicely.

I must say, aren’t these auto-scripture-hyperlinks spiffy!

Hi Matt.

Thanks for the comments. But perhaps you had better rescind my promotion - I am unqualified for the position.

** Say hey, this post is for Christ, ...

** Say hey Christ, I didn’t get this.
Wot ya mean?

[quote author="Chris Little"]Hi Matt.

Thanks for the comments. But perhaps you had better rescind my promotion - I am unqualified for the position.

** Say hey, this post is for Christ, ...

Just ‘Chris’ will be fine

** Oh!  Ha ha, I didn’t even notice that.  My apologies for an unusually inappropriate typo!

[quote author="Chris Little"]Just ‘Chris’ will be fine

** Say hey Andy,

So Missoula is extremely liberal - you must fit right in ;-) ;-)

** Goodness!  I’m really quite far from being liberal.  The only thing that I really have in common with liberals is a general dislike for certain aspects of capitalism, and a love for the environment.

Is the liberalness in the town or the seminary(?)?

** I’m at a college, not a seminary.  The college probably has the highest concentration of liberal-ness, but there tends to be a healthy amount of “overflow” into the town.

Again I think we are saying similar things. Neither of us seem to want to endorse “natural theology” but the eye of faith can begin to see (now marred) patterns embedded in created reality; especially when informed and licensed by the typological explanations of the Bible (and you would add tradition).

** Sounds good.

And I think there is also some kind of typological connection (which I can’t quite grasp) between the Son qua Son and humans qua humans which allows the Son to become human and which makes all the potentiality of Ps 8 really turn out to be about Christ (but still about humanity) cf Heb 2:5-9.

** I think we might be thinking along the same lines here.  I’ve thought for some time that the Messianic texts are actually Trinitarian texts.  The king/son of God (= The Son) is anointed with the oil of gladness (= The Spirit) by God (= The Father), and the oil (= The Spirit) runs down his (= The Son’s) whole body (= the Church participating in the Son’s sonship via the Spirit).  And so on.

Having said this there is some correspondance alluded to in 1Cor 11 (still waiting for your thoughts ;-))

** I’ve already said all that I have to say on that passage vis-a-vis the Trinity. :-)

Even the John of the Cross quote makes the connection (though at a slightly different point from 1Cor11).

** This really seems to be a point that you’d like to drive home, but I’m not seeing the thread; that is, I feel as though I’ve already covered this area.  But go ahead and tell me your thoughts, and I’ll play the socratic mid-wife :-)
Peace and all the best,
Matt

that was a joke about you being liberal.
what are you studying?

The king/son of God (= The Son) is anointed with the oil of gladness (= The Spirit) by God (= The Father), and the oil (= The Spirit) runs down his (= The Son’s) whole body (= the Church participating in the Son’s sonship via the Spirit). And so on.

I’m not sure I’d discover it in the same way (you’re a bit more allegorical than me) but I think the OT language re Sons of God re the Davidic kings and angels is about the Son (eg Heb 1:5ff). The trick here as I see it is that these become the son of God by adoption ("son" meaning a special God-delegated role of authority) whereas the Son has his Sonship eternally by nature. So how can they apply to him?

But maybe these ‘becoming’ passages (eg Ps2, Ps110) take us back to the Father’s purpose for the Son. His saving death and resurrection presents him to the world as the Son of God. In other words he is revealed/appointed to be God’s ruler in this world and thereby glorified in a new way even though his relationship with the Father is unchanged.

My warrant for this is the trajectory of Rev 4-5 where the Father is hymned for creating and then there is a new song for the Lamb who was slain. The Son’s role in everything up to the incarnation makes him worthy of praise since he is God and creator etc but somehow it’s also transparent. But with the cross and resurrection he is made visible and receives a particular glory (and bride) that is his in a new way.

That was an extended ramble, sorry.

Re the marriage thing - goodness, I don’t want to push it. 1Cor 11:3 is the one passage that makes the connection. Actually I think the real connection between this topic and the gender debate is not analogical but logical; can equality and inequality coexist? I say “yes” as long as we are not talking about the same regard just as threeness and oneness can coexist as long as God is not three and one in the same regard (ie it’s one nature three persons, not one person and three persons etc which would be simply a contradiction). I seem to recall to you covering this last point somewhere else…

** Say hey Andy,

what are you studying?

** Double major: philosophy and classics.  Laying the groundwork for being able to read the fathers and do theology accordingly :-)

So how can they apply to him?

** Like you suggested, they participate in his sonship.  However, the thing which makes them able to participate is the Incarnation, and more specifically, baptism of the Son of God.  It’s like a nucleus radiating outward from the center and grabbing all things, drawing them into itself, and giving them meaning.
You don’t dig allegory?  Try Henri De Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition.

But with the cross and resurrection he is made visible and receives a particular glory (and bride) that is his in a new way.

** Aye, as John says, “He has revealed him.” The slain lamb on the center of the throne tells us not only about the Son; it tells us about the Father as well: ”This is my almightiness.”
Ever read Richard Bauckham’s God Crucified?  You’ve gotta get that!

Re the marriage thing - goodness, I don’t want to push it.

** Oh, okay.  But, then . . . 

1Cor 11:3 is the one passage that makes the connection. Actually I think the real connection between this topic and the gender debate is not analogical but logical; can equality and inequality coexist? I say “yes”

** . . . why are you pushing it? ;-) Granting that there is no contradiction in your assertion, what are you trying to say?  For I cannot help but be under the impression that you’re suggesting that: “Just as the wife submits obediently to the husband while being, in another sense, wholly equal to him, so too the Son . . . “
And as I’ve made clear from the start, I think that we’d get along more profitably if we turned elsewhere.  First the Trinity, then marriage.  As we’re still attempting to gain a perception of the Trinity, I don’t think we’ve yet earned the right to move on :-)
Adios and all the best,
Matt

>>You don’t dig allegory? Try Henri De Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition.

I don’t thoroughly object to it. It shades into typology which I do like. The question is a matter of controls on speculation. I’m sure we’ve both heard some fairly loopy allegories. But I think we are running into sola scriptura issues here aren’t we? ;-)

>>Ever read Richard Bauckham’s God Crucified? You’ve gotta get that!

Someone else has always borrowed that book when I get to the library (which is not very often).

>>** . . . why are you pushing it? ;-)

my lips are sealed :-I

Matt it looks like the discussion is winding down here. If that’s the case I just wanted to say thanks so much for joining in on the discussion. We have all learned a lot from your comments and understanding.

God bless,
am