Though various theologians like Fred Sanders, Michael Bird, Stephen Holmes, and D. Glenn Butner have argued that the creator-creature distinction implies the Trinity cannot archetypally ground human social relations, this paper questions whether Scripture might encourage us to look at the Trinity not only as grounding our redemption—in the first place—but also as grounding a “social program”—in the second place. I will examine three pieces of possible support for grounding social ethics in the eternal Trinity: (1) Scripture makes socio-ethical appeals to the Trinitarian economy; (2) Theology that reduces the Trinitarian social archetype to the economy seems to result in a Christological contradiction; and (3) Grounding human relations in a Trinitarian exemplar may help explain how the immutable Son could, in the presence of the Father, truly represent his people—without his having to assume a human person.
First, Scripture makes ethical appeals to the Trinitarian economy (e.g., John 17:11–23; 1 Cor 11:1–3; Eph 5:1–2; Phil 2:1–11), which shows that the Trinity might serve as an exemplar for human social relations. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:1, the apostle Paul describes himself as an exemplar in his imitation of Christ, the chief exemplar: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” Second, theologians who reduce the Trinitarian social archetype to the Trinitarian economy seem to affirm an implicit contradiction—i.e., The Son’s redemptive economy involves no new filial subject and relation (i.e., against Nestorianism), and the economy does involve a new filial subject and relation (i.e., as a Messianic exemplar). The anti-exemplarist position must affirm that the Son does not add a new Messianic subject and relation (against Nestorianism) and that the Son does add a new Messianic subject and relation (against an exemplarist Trinity).
Lastly, a Trinitarian social-archetype model better explains why the divine Son could accomplish our redemption by assuming a human nature (i.e., enhypostasis) without needing to assume a human person (i.e., anhypostasis). This is possible, as Stephen Wellum states regarding Christ’s relation as the “image of the invisible God,” because “the Son is the original image in accordance with which humans were created: he is the archetype and we are the ectype.” The eternal Son does not need to take on a new image to become incarnate because he is the original image and pattern for humanity. Because the Son of God is mankind’s eternal exemplar we can look forward to the day when we will receive our fulfilment in him, being completely transformed into his eternal image. Because we have been united to him by faith, we will one day be like him, for we will see him face to face.