The revelation of the Father

I. Introduction

This post will focus on two aspects of the Trinity: (i) the coequality of the Trinitarian persons and (ii) the revelatory role of the Son and the Spirit.

II. The Trinity in Scripture

1. Immanent/economic Trinity

Much of what I’ll highlight has direct reference to the economic Trinity. At the same time, the ontophany of the economic Trinity is ultimately grounded in ontology of the immanent Trinity. They can do what they do because they are what they are.




2. Coequality

I’m going to quote some passages from Gruenler’s monograph on the Johannine Trinity. My position intersects with his, although his approach is someone different from mine. I think he overworks the Social Trinitarian paradigm. I myself am using a revelatory paradigm. But those caveats aside, he makes some helpful observations.

“It is what I have called (following Gabriel Marcel) the attribute of disposability, that is, of being there for the other as servants who place themselves at the other person’s disposal in the act of hospitality and generosity…Juxtaposed in Jesus’ discourses are two kinds of statements: those that express his coequality with the Father and those that express his faithful servanthood on the Father’s behalf. Similarly, while the Father is given pride of place by the Son, he is seen to defer to the Son by honoring and glorifying him as appointed spokesman on behalf of the divine Family, and by faithfully listening and responding to the Son’s requests on behalf of himself and the community of believers. Father and Son similarly (the text implies) honor the Holy Spirit as the appointed spokesman and interpreter in the present age, while the Holy Spirit (again implied) reciprocally honors and serves the Father and the Son,” R. Gruenler, The Trinity in the Gospel of John (Baker 1986), x-xi.

“If one wishes to say, using the language of Jesus in the fourth Gospel, that within the inner relationship of the eternal Trinity the Father always commands and the Son and Spirit always obey, that only the Father authoritatively speaks and the Son and Spirit always passively listen, but never the other way around, and that yet at the same time neither is principally inferior or superior to the other, then language has failed me at some point, for a category mistake would seem to have slipped into the argument that does not carefully distinguish when the proposition might be true and when it should be deemed false. The best one could do under these circumstances to salvage Jesus’ claims of equality with the Father would be to speak of this equality on the impersonal level of unity of substance in the Trinity (category 1) where there is perfect oneness, coupled however with inequality of the level of subsistence as intercommuning persons (category 2). At least one discussant actually takes this point of view and argues that the Son is absolutely one with the Father only on the level of undifferentiated substance or essence, while in their actual personal relationship as Father and Son (the Spirit being a subordinate third party) they are unequal, because the Son and Spirit are eternally subordinate to the Father. The Father always commands, the Son and Spirit always listen and obey,” ibid. xiii-xiv.

“I question whether Jesus had such subtleties in mind when he said, ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (8:58); “I and the Father are one’ (10:30); ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me (14:11); ‘All that the Father has is mine’ (16:15). It is important to note the personal genre of Jesus’ address when he uses the personal pronoun I and the personal proper noun Father in these claims. Jesus is not talking about impersonal substance; he does not mean to say that as Son he is actually unequal to the Father as far as their personal relationship is concerned, while one with the Father only on the level of their common substance. The question cannot be resolved in that direction. If the language of Jesus is to be exegeted properly as the expression of his relationship to the Father then it must be recognized that his statements of subordination (he is sent, he listens, he obeys) are the language of the incarnate Son who has voluntarily assumed a subordinate role in time and space for the work of salvation. The subordination of Son and Spirit to the Father is for the time of redemption only; hence Jesus’ subordinationist language describes what have traditionally been called the ‘modes of operation’ that pertain to the accomplishment of the redemptive task. Jesus’ claims to coequality with the Father constitute on the other hand what theologians have technically terms ‘modes of subsistence’ and describe the necessary relation of the persons of the Trinity,” ibid. xiv.

“But there is another problem in literally extrapolating into the interrelationship of the eternal divine Family Jesus’ language about always listening to and obeying the Father and being less than the Father. It would mean that only the Father would have authority to speak, while the Son (and Spirit) would be eternally cast in the role of passive listeners. That is of course absurd and no one would go so far as to follow it to such a logical conclusion. Yet that is what must logically follow if the sent/listen/obey sayings of Jesus are taken as absolutes that describe the eternal relationship of Son (and Spirit) to the Father. Rather, as I have argued in the study, they are to be exegeted as a genre of language by which Jesus dramatically and ironically describes his voluntary servanthood on behalf of the divine Family in the redemptive program. That this is so should be clear form his alternating-equality statements, as well as his discourses with the Father where the Father listens and (so the texts imply) does the bidding of the Son. We will see that the Father also exhibits the ‘modes of operation’ as he listens to the Son, grants his requests, bears witness to him, and glorifies (8:18,50,54; 12:28; 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13-15; 17:1,5) him in a mutuality that is underscored by Jesus’ claims to absolute coequality with the Father (10:30; 14:9,11; 17:11,21),” ibid. xv.

“The Gospel of John intimates that each of the persons of the Triunity willingly, lovingly, and voluntarily seeks to serve and please the other,” ibid. xvii.

“We are popularly accustomed to think of the Trinity in a descending order of authority, Father first, Son second, Holy Spirit third because we refer to them in that accustomed order (Jesus deferentially uses that order in Mt 28:19). But that may be understood as a convention of speech which describes the modes of operation in the redemptive process…He can say that he is sent by the Father and that he listens to the Father, but that suggests an essential and necessary subordination only if he has to be sent and has to listen because otherwise he would not wish to go or hear what the Father has to say,” ibid. xvii-xviii.

3. Deus Absconditus et revelatus

I think one basic element involves a distinction between the Deus absconditus and the Deus revelatus. Of course, Scripture doesn’t use that precise terminology, but I think the principle is present and pervasive. To take one pertinent example:

“John reflects a pattern, found also in the OT, of distinguishing between the word of the Lord that is heard and the vision of God that is either denied, or granted only partially. So, for example, Moses may be said to speak to God ‘face to face’ (Exod 33:11), but he is not permitted to see God face to face, for ‘no one shall see me and live’ (33:18-23). Instead Moses is granted a vision of God has he ‘passes by.’ Similarly, according to Deuteronomy, when the people gathered to receive the law, they heard his voice but ‘saw no form’ (4:12; cf. 5:4). This becomes the explanation for the command against making idols and images (4:15-18). In these passages, then, while it is possible to speak with God and hear the voice of God, seeing God is either not possible at all or possible only in a limited or partial way. Precisely because the vision of God is restricted in some way, it is also a superior means of experiencing or apprehending God,” M. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Eerdmans 2001), 110.

“In the Gospel of John there is a clear echo of the passages in the assertions that no one has ever seen God (1:18) or God’s form (5:37; 6:45-46). There is, of course, one exception, and that is the Son, who has seen the Father and hence can make him known. The vision of God is thus restricted to the Son alone. Precisely here lies the essence of the contrast between seeing and hearing in God in John, a contrast summarized in John 6:45-46: ‘Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father,’” ibid. 110.

“Because in this world the Son makes the Father known, one truly ‘sees’ God: but only indirectly, and in hidden ways. The hiddenness of the glory of the Father in the Son informs every scene of the Gospel…Even the signs of Jesus are manifestations of the hidden glory of God in Jesus,” ibid. 143.

Here we see the Father in the role of Deus absconditus, with the Son in the role of Deus revelatus.

i) Divine invisibility

This is one of the ways in which the Bible depicts the transcendence of God. God is ordinarily hidden from human view. And that’s because he belongs to a different order of being.

ii) Aniconic piety

This, in turn, is reflected in Israel’s aniconic piety. God is not to be “idolized.”

iii) Divine holiness

a) In Biblical usage, this is both an ethical and ontological attribute. It accentuates the moral and metaphysical transcendence of God. His alterity in relation to the world in general and the fallen world in particular.

The God of Scripture is transcendent. Holy. Invisible. In that respect, God is unknowable unless he makes himself known.

b) In Scripture, as I construe it, the Father is the member of the Godhead who represents the Deus absconditus. Put another way, the Father represents the immanent Trinity. Conversely, the Son and Spirit represent the Deus revelatus.

The distinction is representational rather than essential. All three persons constitute the immanent Trinity, but the First Person generally represents the immanent Trinity.

By contrast, the Son and Spirit generally represent the economic Trinity. Once again, the distinction is representative rather than essential. Inasmuch as the economic Trinity involves a set of correlative roles between the respective members of the Trinity, the First Person has an economic identity as well as an immanent identity.

But in economic terms, the Son and Spirit are visible, audible representatives of the invisible, inaudible God (representing the person of the Father). Divine “icons” of the aniconic God.

I’ll unpack this momentarily.

The Father discloses himself in the person of the Son and the Spirit. They can represent him because, in a fundamental respect, they are what they reveal.

4. Representation

In Scripture, divine self-revelation involves a representational principle. God reveals himself through people and things.

Poythress calls this “imaging.” To take some examples:

The tabernacle and the temple also show some internal structure that expresses the theme of imaging (fig. 12.1). They both have three distinct spaces, with increasing degrees of holiness. The outermost of these is the courtyard, where there is an altar for burnt offerings (the bronze altar). The individual Israelite worshiper could come into this space and present his offering. The offering would be received by one of the priests, the sons of Aaron. They alone were permitted to approach the bronze altar, where a portion or all of the offering was to be burned.

A higher degree of holiness belonged to the “Holy Place,” the outer of the two rooms of the tabernacle. It was a tent structure positioned on the far side of the bronze altar. Only the priests were permitted to enter this room. Beyond this room was a second room, “the Most Holy Place,” with the greatest degree of holiness (Heb. 9:1–10).

Christ is the original image, “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). He is himself God, so he is a divine image. Adam was made in the image of God, and so is a created image. We can say more precisely that he is in the image of Christ, so he is in a sense an image of an image. In addition, there is imaging beyond Adam. Adam “fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Gen. 5:3). Seth, then, is an image of Adam.

We have already said that the human ability to stand back and analyze imitates the transcendence of God. We can re-express this theme through imaging. Let us begin with the tabernacle, which is an image of God’s heavenly dwelling. The tabernacle shows that God is present with the Israelites and their earthly dwellings. In the instructions for the tabernacle, God says, “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst” (Ex. 25:8). God draws near to his people, anticipating the time when he would draw near to them in Christ, who is “Immanuel,” that is “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

By contrast, God’s heavenly dwelling more prominently depicts his transcendence. He transcends the limitations of creatures dwelling on earth. If a king has his throne placed above the level of the commoners, that exalted position of the throne connotes his authority and his rule over the commoners. When God’s throne is depicted as exalted to heaven itself, it depicts his control over the entire universe. In sum, we can say that God’s transcendence is represented by the upper dwelling in heaven, while his immanence is represented by the earthly copy of that dwelling.

But that is not the complete story. Both the tabernacle and its heavenly original accurately express God’s character. They express both his control (transcendence) and his presence (immanence). These two aspects of God coinhere. His presence may be more obviously expressed in the earthly copy.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/In_The_Beginning/Poythress.IntheBeginning.pdf

The idea of copying or imaging features prominently in the tabernacle. The tabernacle as a whole is a copy or image of the macrocosmic dwelling of God in the world. More particularly, it is an image of heaven. The inner room, the Most Holy Place, offers something closer to a picture of the immediate dwelling of God in the presence of heavenly beings, the cherubim. The curtain separating the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place corresponds in a natural way to the blue sky, which conceals the invisible presence of God in the heavenly places. The Holy Place “images” the Most Holy Place at a lower level of holiness, and the courtyard beyond “images” the holiness of the two rooms at a still lower level of holiness.

Ezekiel 1 shows ways in which a loose kind of imaging can operate. Roughly speaking, the theophany in Ezekiel 1 has three layers. The outer layer is a storm cloud (1:4). Then there are four living creatures and the associated wheels (1:5-25). Finally, in the center is a throne with a human figure on it (1:26-28). Several features reoccur in each layer: fire (1:4, 13, 27), gleaming metal (1:4, 7, 27), a voice or sound (1:24, 25; 1:28; 9:3-4). These features each suggest something relating to the character of God. The fire suggests the fire of God’s consuming judgment (see Heb. 12:29). The gleaming metal suggests both the brightness of God’s holiness and the firmness of his judgment.

The voice suggests his ability to speak and pronounce judgment (see Rev. 1:15). These features fit the overall mood of judgment that appears in the first part of Ezekiel. Theophanies thus reveal something about God at the same time that they also remain mysterious and make us aware of God’s transcendence.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/NAllPoythressRedeemingScience20061017.pdf 

Without going into detail about these different forms, let us start with the most basic form, namely, the eternal Word, the second person of the Trinity. Calling him “the Word” indicates a relation between the Trinitarian character of God and language. In this analogical relation, God the Father is the speaker, while God the Son is the speech, “the Word.”

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/In_The_Beginning/Poythress.IntheBeginning.pdf

We may reexpress these truths using the language of imaging. The Son is the exact Image of the Father, according to Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3. So he is able to present the Father to the world: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). In the next verse, John 14:10, Jesus explains that the Father is present through indwelling: “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?” The Son’s images the Father and presents the Father to the disciples because the two Persons dwell in one another. As we have seen, the dwelling of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father is closely associated with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is their bond of union. The Son is the Image of the Father through the Spirit. The Spirit represents the concurrent aspect, the relation between the Father and the Son. Because of the close relation of the three aspects to imaging, let us then call the triad consisting in originary, manifestational, and concurrent perspectives the triad of imaging.

In a unique sense the Son is the exact Image of the Father. But the Bible uses the language of image with respect to man. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him” (Gen. 1:27). Man is the image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). Moreover, the idea of imaging does not simply stop with the creation of the first man. Genesis 5:1-3 goes on to say:

This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.” When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

God made man in his image and named them “man.” Adam had a son in his image and named his son “Seth.” Adam imitated God in these actions. He was “imaging” God in the process of producing another image. Seth is the image of Adam. Adam in the image of God. And God has an imaging relation within himself, in the relation of the Father to the Son. Each derivative imaging relation is itself an image of a higher imaging relation.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/GCBI/BG03WhatIs.htm

5. Symmetry

Poythress also has some useful things to say about symmetry in Scripture:

The tabernacle, as we saw in chapter 17, contains a number of imaging relations. We may consider one specific example of imagery within the tabernacle, namely the measurements. The tabernacle has many features that show simple proportions. The Holy Place is the same width as the Most Holy Place, but twice as long. The table with the bread of the Presence has dimensions of two cubits in length, one cubit in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height (Ex. 25:23). That is, the dimensions are 2 X 1 X 1. Length and breadth are in the proportion of 2 to 1. Breadth and height are in the proportion of 1 to 1, which is the same as a ratio of 2 to 3. Length and height are in the proportion of 2 to 1, which is the same as 4 to 3. The court of the tabernacle has a length of 100 cubits and a breadth of 50, again with a ratio of 2 to 1. The court is 5 times the dimensions of the Holy Place, which has a length of 20 cubits and a breadth of 10 cubits.

What are we to make of this? There are perhaps some practical reasons for some of the dimensions. The dimensions had to be reasonable for human use. And the simple lengths in terms of cubits are easier to measure. But the symmetries also suggest beauty and harmony. Consider also that the outer of the two rooms, the Holy Place, possesses attenuated holiness in comparison with the Most Holy Place. The Most Holy Place is the image of the dwelling place of God. The Holy Place is then a kind of image of an image. And it is proportional to the inner room that it images. Proportionalities offer one expression of the principle of imaging.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/NAllPoythressRedeemingScience20061017.pdf

6. The Father as Deus absconditus

i) Sender

a) God sends various representatives who speak and act in his name. At one level are the prophets (e.g. Lk 11:49).

At a higher level, the Father sends the Son and the Spirit.

Like the prophets, these are divine representatives, but “divine” in a higher and proper sense. The prophets are not inherently divine. Rather, they are divine representatives in the derivative sense that they are authorized by God and inspired by God.

By contrast, the Son and Spirit are intrinsically representative of God because they are fully and truly divine in their own right. They are what they say and do.

b) Nicene subordinists deduce from Father’s role as sender that the Father is superior to the Son and the Spirit. This is in part because they note the asymmetry between the Father, who does the sending, and the Son or Spirit, who are sent (by him).

This is also in part because they assume that if someone is sent, then he is inferior to the sender. Basically, Nicene subordinists are operating with a master/servant, superior/subordinate model.

And there are no doubt cases in which that’s true. But that’s not a defining feature of the principle.

For instance, we can see the difference in the parable of the tenants. To take the key passage: “When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, “They will respect my son'” (Mt 21:34-37).

Both the king’s servants and the king’s son act as royal emissaries. To dishonor a royal representative dishonors the monarch. But there’s a difference of degree, amounting to a difference of kind. To dishonor the prince (i.e. king’s own son or heir presumptive) dishonors the sender in a way that’s materially indistinguishable from dishonoring the king himself. For he isn’t simply acting in the name of the king. Rather, the king’s name is his own name.

Likewise, “Here Jesus speaks of his death in terms of a ‘charge’ that he received from his Father, a ‘charge’ that encompasses his resurrection as well (10:18). Yet the passages simultaneously stresses Jesus’ sovereignty: he lays down his life freely, not by force (10:18). Indeed, the emphasis on his own initiative sounds a steady drumbeat throughout these two verses: ‘I lay down my life’: ‘I take it again’; ‘I lay it down of my own accord’; ‘I have power to lay it down; ‘I have power to take it again,’” The God of the Gospel of John, 95

c) Apropos (b), I think the asymmetry is not intended to distinguish between a superior and a subordinate, but between the Deus absconditus and the Deus revelatus.

d) Apropos (c), the Father sends the Son and Spirit because the act of sending reflects the representational principle. It preserves the Biblical distinction between divine transcendence and immanence. Even when God reveals himself, he conceals himself. Self-revelation is not exhaustive.

The Father sends the Son and the Spirit because they function as his visible representatives. And they can do so because, in this instance, the second party is truly representational of the first party.

ii) Father

Fatherhood also reflects the representational principle. In Scripture, fatherhood images itself in sonship. Hence, a son is a revelation of his father.

iii) Speaker

In Scripture, the Father represents the divine speaker, whereas the Son represents the divine speech.

This reflects the representational principle, where the spoken word is the audible representation of the speaker’s inaudible mind. And the same principle holds true for the spoken word and written word alike.

The Spirit of God, as the “Spirit of the prophets” and the agent of inscripturation, has an analogous role.

iv) Elector

Scripture depicts the Father as the agent of election. This would be another example of the Deus absconditus inasmuch as divine election is an extramundane decision. It has visible consequences, but it takes place behind the scenes.

7. The Son as Deus revelatus

i) Word of God

In Jn 1:1,14, Jesus is the Logos. This reflects the representational principle. God’s words represent God himself. They also manifest his invisible, inaudible mind.

This is already true of the prophets, and it’s even truer of Christ, for, ultimately, only God can reveal God (1:18).

ii) Image of God

In Pauline Christology, Jesus is, among other things, the true image of God (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4,6; Col 1:15).

This reflects the representational principle: Christ is the visible, iconic “image” of the invisible, aniconic God.

Of course, human beings are also divine image-bearers, but they are ectypal image-bearers whereas the Son is the archetypal image-bearer.

iii) Glory of God

In Pauline theology, Jesus is, among other things, the glory of God (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4,6).

This reflects the representational principle. In Biblical theophanies, the glory of God was a visible manifestation of God’s presence.

iv) Son of God

The divine sonship of Christ has various connotations in Scripture, but one connotation is representational: a son images his father. Like father, like son.

The Son can truly represent the Father inasmuch as Father and Son are two of a kind. As one scholar puts it: “Their ‘kinship’ as Father and Son becomes the basis for a number of claims made for Jesus, including his authority to judge, to give life, to mediate knowledge of the Father and to reveal him, to do the works and will of the Father, and therefore to receive honor, as even the Father does,” The God of the Gospel of John, 70.

v) Name of God

In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus not only comes in the name of God, like one of the prophets, but he actually bears the name of God. He shares the family name (5:43; 10:25; 17:6,11-12,26).

To speak or act in someone’s name is a representative function. You speak or act on their behalf, as their designated spokesman or agent.

vi) Witness of God

In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus comes to bear witness to the Father. And that’s a representative role. Like a character witness who vouches for a second party.

vii) ”Facsimile” of God

Heb 1:3 uses the metaphor of replication to portray the relationship between the Father and the Son. It’s a representational metaphor, denoting exact resemblance.

8. The Spirit as the Deus revelatus

i) Glory of God

a) In Scripture, the Spirit of God is associated with the Shekinah. And this reflects the representational principle. For the Shekinah was a visible, theophanic manifestation of the invisible God. The manifest presence of God.

b) I’d add that, in John, you have a principle of mutual glorification, as one member of the Trinity glorifies another (Jn 5:44; 8:54; 12:23,28; 13:32-32; 14:13; 17:1,5).

This undercuts a hierarchical conception of the Trinity.

ii) Breath of God

a) This metaphor has more than one connotation. In part, it probably connotes the breath of life. The Spirit of God animates a human being (e.g. the creation of Adam). When he dies, he “expires.”

b) In addition, it probably connotes the spoken word. And by extension, the word of God or Scripture. The Spirit of God is the “Spirit of prophecy.” He inspires the prophets.

And this reflects the representative principle. Divine speech represents the divine speaker. Speech-acts stand for mental acts.

iii) Spirit of truth

In Johannine pneumatology, the Holy Spirit is, among other things, the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 16:13).

This reflects the representative principles. The Spirit speaks on behalf of the sender (the Father) by inspiring a human mouthpiece (as it were). He thereby reveals the mind and will of the invisible God.

iv) Witness of God

Like the Son, the Spirit also bears witness to God (Jn 15:26).

In sum, the Father (as Deus absconditus) reveals himself in the persons of the Son and the Spirit (as Deus revelatus). And they can assume that economic role because they intimately resemble what they reveal.

9. Enantiomorphosis

I think the next logical step is to consider representational models which might, in turn, serve as Trinitarian models.

It seems to me that symmetry is a promising model.

i) I’ll define symmetry as: a relation of self-similarity or equipollent correspondence.

ii) Symmetry involves a set of relations.

iii) Symmetry is a representational principle, in which one relatum is substitutable for another.

iv) Something can either be externally or internally symmetrical.

For example, a single snowflake exhibits internal symmetry, while two or more snowflakes (of the same kind) exhibit external symmetry.

v) Some kinds of symmetries are open-ended (e.g. tessellations, recursions). They are infinitely iterable.

vi) By contrast, mirror symmetries are self-contained. And, the relations are necessarily given–no more and no less.

vii) Mirror symmetries exhibit the property of chirality. As a result, a mirror-symmetry is equipollent, yet irreducible. Although there’s a one-to-one correspondence between the relata, their chiral orientation is incongruous (i.e. left-handedness is not equivalent to, or reducible to, right-handedness). So chirality supplies the principle of individuation.

viii) In this respect, enantiomorphosis represents the coincidentia oppositorum between numerical identity and alterity.

On the one hand, the relata are equipollent. In that respect, they repeat each other. So by knowing one relatum, you implicitly know its counterpart or “mirror image.”

On the other hand, it also exhibits repetition with variation, for chirality distinguishes the relata. Therefore, a mirror-symmetry can’t collapse into the identity of indiscernibles.

Is a mirror-symmetry one or many? I think that’s a false dichotomy. A mirror-symmetry exhibits a very rigorous degree of unity. The properties of each relatum mirror the properties of the opposing relatum. Yet, due to chirality, the relation is incongruous.

BTW, I’m not discussing how we visualize a mirror-symmetry. That confuses a concrete illustration with the abstract structure of its internal relations.

10. Trinity & symmetry

It seems to me that mirror-symmetries afford a useful way to model the one over many, and, by the same token, to model the Trinity.

Depending on the type of symmetry in view, symmetrical relations furnish:

i) An individuating principle

Chirality or handedness

ii) A harmonistic principle

Symmetries are both complex and unified–or even unitary (depending on the type).

iii) An iterative principle

Symmetries present a rigorous case of self-similarity.

iv) A containment principle

Depending on the type of symmetry, symmetrical iterations are not unbounded.

And I think captures what we wish to say about the metaphysical logic of the Trinity.