We cannot, Barth insists, read off the relations of the persons from revelation.  In comprehending the distinctions between the persons in revelation we “do not comprehend the distinctions in the divine modes of being as such.”  That would lead to tritheism.

To be sure, the distinctions that are evident between Creator, Reconciler, Redeemer in redemptive history hint at eternal distinctions within God; they provide “an analogy” and in this analogy the triunity of God is presented, but presented precisely as mystery.  We ought not, in short, equate the “distinctions that are comprehensible to us with those that are not.”

Of course the relations of the three Persons are not identical to relations between human persons.  But there are a couple of disquieting features to Barth’s argument.

First, the distinction between “comprehensible” and “incomprehensible” relations is far too neat.  Can I comprehend my relations with my wife or kids?

Second, Barth’s argument certainly does affirm mystery, but perhaps it verges toward affirming mystery at the expense of revelation.  What exactly does Barth think we can learn from the interactions of Jesus and His Father in the economy?  We get hints and analogies, but does the Triune God disclose His inner life to us?  Do we learn anything beyond the “that” of distinction in God?  Do we learn “what” those distinctions are?

Third, we can affirm that there is “only” analogy between economy and immanent Trinity, but why should that analogy be worked out apophatically?  Perhaps we should not say (as Barth seems to): The persons of God don’t interact like human persons; divine distinctions are there, but we have no idea what they might be like.  Perhaps we should instead go by way of immanence: The personal relations of Father, Son and Spirit are not less personal than human relations, but infinitely more so; the Father relates to the Son as fathers relate to sons, only the Father is supereminently Father, the Son superlatively Son, and their relational hyper-familial.  That preserves mystery just as effectively as Barth’s argument, but doesn’t do so at the expense of revelation.