On the need for caution when using human terms to describe the relationships between the Trinity
This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 2006.
I see that you are still engaged in the awesome subject of the inter-relationships within the Trinity. It is certainly for us, as it has been all down the centuries, difficult to know exactly how we should speak in formal language about the three Persons of the Trinity; for when we try to express this elevated subject in formal logical phraseology we surely find that we cannot comprehend the whole matter within our feeble language. That, of course, is what we might expect, for we are trying to comprehend a subject that in its fullness by definition goes beyond our comprehension. It is no accident that the New Testament itself does not try to expound the Trinity in the terms and forms of systematic theology.
It is right, of course, that we try to speak rightly about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And God himself has deigned to talk to us about these matters using our human terms, such as 'Father' and 'Son'; though, of course, when we use those terms we have to remember that we cannot take all the meanings of those terms in our ordinary human language and read them back as though they were, all of them, rightly applied to the Godhead. For instance, when we read of the new Jerusalem as the bride and wife of the Lamb, we cannot take all the meanings and implications of the terms 'bride' and 'wife' at the human level and apply all those meanings at the divine level. The bride of the Lamb, for instance, is a company of people made up of a number of persons that no one can possibly count.
That said, the terms Father and Son, as used by God in his word, are not interchangeable terms. It is surely significant that the members of the Godhead are not referred to as 'brother' and 'brother', but Father and Son and Spirit. Within the Godhead it is the Father who takes the initiative.
That said, however, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the term 'God' must be interpreted according to context. In Greek, two words are used: theotēs and theiotēs. The difference of meaning between these very similar terms is significant and important. The second term expresses, what we may call in simple language, the quality of the Godhead. So, for instance, in Romans 1:19–20 Scripture tells us that what may be known of God through God's self-revelation in creation is his eternal power and theiotēs. We may paraphrase this by saying that even the most hard-boiled atheist knows in his heart, when he looks at the vast creation around him, that there is a God of eternal power; a being who is not just a superhuman being, but who has the quality of a god. The term theotēs, on the other hand, does not refer to the attributes of God, but to his essential being. Not his God-likeness, but his God-ness. It is this word theotēs that is used in Colossians 2:9, where it says that 'in him (that is, Christ) dwells all the fullness of theotēs bodily'.
Professor Lightfoot, in his famous commentaries, pointed out the distinction between theiotēs and theotēs by using two English words in their strict, but now old fashioned, meaning. Theiotēs is the equivalent of divinity; theotēs is the equivalent of deity. Divinity is the quality of being God; deity is the essential being of God. In the light of this, your statement ---that the only true God is the Father, and again the only true God is one, not three, and that one is the Father—would seem to imply that our Lord Jesus, the Son of God, is not the true God. Am I reading you rightly? If so, what do you mean by the adjective 'true'? Surely you cannot mean that the Son of God is a false god? And I cannot think that you mean that the Son of God is not really God—like the tabernacle in the Old Testament was only a symbol: it wasn't the real, the true, tabernacle. So I am left with a quandary as to what you mean.
The other general comment I will make is on your discussion about the meaning of the term i am, which our Lord used of himself. You quote John 8 verses 28 and 58; but you do not comment on the fact that the expression egō eimi, i am, is the LXX translation of the Hebrew phrase that Jehovah uses of himself in Isaiah 43:10-11 (Hebrew ʾănî hûʾ) = '. . . I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the lord; and beside me there is no saviour'.
My questions spring from my conviction that we need to be very careful how we speak about the members of the Godhead, and the terms we use in our limited human language to express the relationships between them.
Ever yours sincerely in Christ,
