Skip to main content

Books and stories, both fun and serious, and papers, studies, and musings
on Christianity, faith, theology, world view, and life.

Pondering the Master

J.M. Diener

July 2026

Over the last year I have been doing some deep research for a series of articles about the relationship between man and woman from a biblical perspective. This is a bit of a hot-button topic among Evangelical Christians, mostly because the various positions on which roles women are permitted or not permitted to take in church leadership. As I’ve read other authors, I noticed that the concept of how men and women being created in the image of God (see Ge. 1:26-27) practically reflects the Trinity was not addressed. So began to ask myself how Trinitarian Theology1 affects Anthropology. Let me share some of my initial thoughts.

One being, multiple persons: As God is three-in-one, so a married couple is two-in-one: one flesh made up of husband and wife (see Ge 2:24; Mt. 19:5-6). One in purpose, one in the eyes of God and society; yet two distinct individuals who are fully human in and of themselves.

Relationship and love: The Trinity is logically necessary for God to be able to experience relationship and to love without any other sentients being in existence. Otherwise, he could not be love (1Jn 4:8).  Thus, the relationship and love experienced between humans—and especially between man and woman—are a direct reflection of the originals found in the Trinity.

Unity in diversity: One of the most amazing things about the Trinity is that, while being one in essence and purpose, each Person within the Godhead is unique. They function together in perfect harmony and unity while maintaining their diversity. Humans reflect this, too, as they come together in community where they strive towards unity in thought and action (Php 2:1-2) while maintaining their individuality and giftings (e.g. 1Co 12:4-7). This is especially clear in the relationship between men and women. The physical, mental, and emotional differences between them are specifically designed to complete one another: they are simultaneously one another’s equal and opposite. This intermingling of similarity and diversity amazingly reflects the Trinity.

Mutually submissive: The three Persons of the Trinity submit to one another voluntarily2 to make the Great Plan come to pass. The Father plans and submits to the Son and the Spirit to have them carry out the plan; the Son submits himself to the Father’s plan and the Spirit’s empowering; and the Spirit submits to being sent forth by the Father and the Son, while bringing glory to them rather than to himself. Humans are also called to submit to one another out of fear of God (Eph 5:21). We are to deny ourselves to make it possible for others to succeed (Php 2:1-11). We are to offer our strengths as sacrifices to help the weakness of others. We are to allow others to bring their strengths to bear where we are weak (Gal 6:2). The only place where we are to compete with one another is to exalt the other human above ourselves (Rom 12:10). This is especially true in marriage where husbands and wives are required to submit themselves to the needs and desires of the other, thus making their oneness work (as supported by a plain reading of Eph 5:22-33).

Functioning in hierarchy: Now this one is a bit controversial. However, as I study the Trinity, I see a clear hierarchy of Father, Son, and Spirit—in that order.3 However, two key points must be made: having another being above you in hierarchy does not diminish your worth;4 nor is there any compulsion or coercion in the positions in the hierarchy. The hierarchy is voluntary, just like the submission; but it is still there. Thus, seeing a hierarchy, especially in marriage, should not surprise us. A hierarchy of God, man, and woman (1Co 11:3) is a reflection of the Trinity.5 Every member is just as valuable as the other. Every member has their role in making things work. And every member is expected to voluntarily assume their station without compulsion or coercion. 

If we look at male-female relationships this way, then it moves the discussion about roles and value to a whole other level and should bring harmonious interpretation to the contentious passages; which, after all, are only contentious because we try to assume authority over them rather than submitting to our Lord and his will as presented by the plain reading6 of the text.

  • 1

    James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) is an excellent resource for a simple, yet profound explanation of the Trinity.

  • 2

    The Greek word behind “submission” paired with Php. 2:1-11 shows that all true submission in Scripture is voluntary—except for once; but that is a topic for another, longer Pondering the Master. For now, see J.M. Diener “The Struggle of Submitting to Scripture”, J.M. Diener’s Writings: Pondering the Master, June 2023 < https://www.wolfhawke.comptm/the-struggle-of-submitting-to-scripture > (accessed 2026-07-19).

  • 3

    The Son submits to the Father’s authority by being sent and limiting himself (see Mt. 26:9; Jn 4:43; 6:38; 8:28-29; 12:49-50); and the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son by being sent by both (Father: Jn. 14:16,26; Gal 4:6; Tit 3:6; Son: Jn 15:26; 16:7; 20:22-23) and bringing glory to them, rather than to himself (Jn 16:14; 1Co 12:3; Jn 4:24).

  • 4

    James White makes this point very firmly on page 66 of his book: “Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.” See J.M. Diener “Worth and Roles”, J.M. Diener’s Writings: Pondering the Master, Feb 2023. < https://www.wolfhawke.com/ptm/worth-and-roles > (accessed 2026-07-19) for another insight from that book.

  • 5

    Interestingly, the Hebrew term for spirit, רוּחַ (rûaḥ), is feminine in gender. See Francis Brown, et al. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), p. 924.

  • 6

    “Plain reading” here assumes a historical-grammatical hermeneutic that takes into account the original intent of the Author, the order of revelation, the cultural milieu of the original recipients and their understanding, the genre of the text, inner-biblical interpretation through later revelation, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit during study and exposition. It does not allow for allegory, eisegesis, or anachronistic cultural readings of texts to impose our personal or communal presuppositions and preferences upon the text. We submit to the text. See “The Struggle of Submitting to Scripture”.

When something feels right and good and real and necessary—but stands against God’s Word—this reveals the particular way Adam’s sin marks my life. Our sin natures deceive us. Sin’s deception isn’t just ‘out there’; it’s also deep in the caverns of our hearts.

Rosaria Butterfield, “Love Your Neighbor Enough to Speak Truth”, The Gospel Coalition, 2016-10-31 < https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/love-your-neighbor-enough-to-speak-truth/ >.