Colossians 1:9-14, Part 7
This biblical teaching requires us to revise some of the traditional theological formulations that erroneously exalt the doctrines of human finitude and depravity above the doctrines of revelation and salvation. Why we do not attain or receive is one issue, but what there is to attain or receive is another. We must not reduce the grace of God and the work of Christ to the level of our failure and unbelief. Paul says that God's gift is greater than man's sin:
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:15-17)
Since the present discussion concerns the fullness of spiritual knowledge, it is appropriate to consider the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God in relation to what is said above. Some courses in dogmatics begin their presentation of the divine attributes with the incomprehensibility of God, and in a manner that sets a pessimistic tone for the entire theological enterprise. This is contrary to the biblical pattern.
Consider the example of Romans 11:33-35, a passage often cited in relation to God's incomprehensibility: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" It is an abuse of the passage to make it an absolute reference point, as if it stands alone in Scripture, or to make it the starting point of our theology. This is because when we consider the passage in context, we notice that it comes at the conclusion of a lengthy and extensive doctrinal section in which Paul expounds on the full range of Christian theology, including divine creation, human depravity, present and future judgment, the federal headship of Adam in sin, the vicarious atonement of Christ in redemption, justification by faith (and not works), sanctification by the Spirit, predestination (election and reprobation), and more. By Romans 11:33, Paul has resolved every question he has raised, including those topics that many theologians insist on calling mysteries and paradoxes, even in defiance against Scripture, such as God's purpose and justice in election (Romans 9), and his sovereign decrees (Romans 10-11).
Charles Hodge thinks that the passage asserts "the incomprehensible character and infinite excellence of the divine nature and dispensations," and that "We can only wonder and adore. We can never understand." However, this is not at all what the passage suggests. Whether we are considering the immediate context of Romans 11 and Romans 9-11, or all the previous materials in Romans 1-11, what exactly is it that we do not understand? What is it that Paul has not explained? He has addressed and resolved all the issues that he raised with full knowledge and confidence.
Whether we understand Paul is another issue – I say that we can, but right now this is not our topic. And if we do not understand Paul, we still cannot attribute this to God's incomprehensibility, since Paul seems to have no problem in understanding the things that he writes, so that it is not impossible in principle to understand all that he expounds in the letter. Now if Hodge means that God cannot be "fully comprehended," then we might agree (nevertheless, with the qualifications that we shall discuss later), but certainly it is wrong to say that "We can only wonder and adore. We can never understand." This is not what happens in Romans. In Romans we wonder and adore because we have understood Romans 1-11 – all of it.
Let us consider Romans 11:33-35 in its immediate context. He writes in verse 25, "I want you to understand this mystery" (ESV). Our purpose does not require us to consider the mystery itself, but only that Paul wants his readers to understand what he calls a mystery. As with other instances in which he uses the word, mystery does not refer to something that is intellectually unattainable in the technical sense, as in how calculus might elude an infant. Rather, a mystery is something that we can understand but, at least for a period of time, has not been told or explained to us.
I could think of a number between 1 and 100,000, and as long as I refuse to reveal it, it would remain a "mystery" to you. But you would have no difficulty understanding it if I were to tell you the number. Mystery in Scripture does not indicate something that we cannot understand because of our limited comprehension, but something that we cannot discover unless conveyed and explained to us by revelation. Then, we can understand it, in many cases, without any difficulty. So Romans 11:33-35 could be expressing a sense of appreciation and wonderment at what Paul has just explained and what we have just understood (whether in Romans 11, 9-11, or all of 1-11). But he has left no question unanswered for 11:33-35 to express an inability to discover or understand anything.
In particular, consider 11:34, which comes from Isaiah 40:13. Paul also cites the verse in 1 Corinthians 2:16. But right after it he adds, "But we have the mind of Christ." And in verse 12, he writes, "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." His point is that we cannot know God and his ways apart from his Word and his Spirit (1:21), but because he has given us his Word and his Spirit, we do understand – quite well, in fact (2:6-10, 13-16), because "God has revealed it to us by his Spirit" (2:10).
It is more than likely that Paul is making a similar point with Isaiah 40:13 in Romans 11, that is, not to say that we cannot understand, but to say that we can and we do, and at the same time to express wonder at what we have just understood. And as in 1 Corinthians 1-2, its use also conveys the assumption that we cannot understand God and his ways without or beyond what he has revealed – BUT, he has indeed revealed and explained to us all that Paul has written, and this includes most if not all the topics that theologians often call mysterious, paradoxical, and incomprehensible. Paul uses Isaiah 40:13 to stress the abundance of information revealed to believers and their potential to understand it, all of it.
Paul does not begin his letter to the Romans with God's incomprehensibility, but by calling attention to how much we already know about God – even as unbelievers attempt to suppress this knowledge – rather than how little we can know about him. In fact, for many people, his view of our knowledge is too optimistic for comfort. He declares that even unbelievers cannot help but know about this God, including his power and wisdom in creation (Romans 1). Even some of his moral principles are innate in man (Romans 2). Elsewhere unbelievers are rightly said to be ignorant of God, since they suppress what they know about him, and they do not know him in the sense of having a positive relationship with him. Right now the point is that Paul does not begin his letter – or for that matter, any of his presentations – with God's incomprehensibility. But we find that he often begins with God's knowability, especially where Christians are concerned – that they can and do know God, and that they can and do possess extensive and accurate knowledge about him.
He writes in 1 Corinthians 1:21, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." God cannot be discovered or understood through human effort alone, apart from revelation. God reveals himself through the gospel, which saves those who believe. Unbelievers indeed possess an innate knowledge of God, a knowledge that God placed in them. They did not obtain it by their own human wisdom. And they are indeed so dull that many of them will deny this knowledge, even as the assumptions in their speech and conduct betray the contrary. This universal knowledge is sufficient to condemn them, but insufficient to enlighten them to the truth and produce faith toward Christ.
Our main focus, however, is on how God's incomprehensibility applies to Christians. And we find that even before 1:21, at the very beginning of the letter, Paul says, "For in him you have been enriched in every way – in all your speaking and in all your knowledge – because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you" (1 Corinthians 1:5-6). Then, at the end of the second chapter, after citing Isaiah 40:13, a verse often used to assert God's incomprehensibility, he adds, "But we have the mind of Christ" (2:16). All of this – that although unbelievers know about him, they deny him, but that believers know him through his self-revelation – is consistent with what we have said about Romans 1-2 and 11.
We take another example from Paul's speech to the Greeks on Mars Hill, as recorded in Acts 17. There he begins by a confident assertion of his own knowledge of God in contrast to the ignorance of the non-Christians (v. 23). The rest of his speech bears a remarkable resemblance to many of our dogmatics in both outline and content. We can multiply examples. The letter to the Hebrews begins by calling attention to God's verbal revelation delivered through the prophets, and now even through the Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). Thus it begins with our extensive and increasingly clear database of spiritual knowledge, not human ignorance or divine incomprehensibility. And John begins his first letter by claiming physical contact with Christ, whom apart from sensation (Matthew 16:17; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-10), he recognized as the Word of Life (1 John 1:1-3). Thus he begins with an assertion of direct knowledge and understanding, not with God's hiddenness or incomprehensibility.
November 16 2007 | Expositions