Colossians 1:9-14, Part 10
In revising the traditional doctrine of God's incomprehensibility, we must also reconsider the terminology that is used and the category that is assumed. It is agreed that God is infinite, and therefore there is an infinite amount of information that could be known about him. And since we are finite, this means that we can never know all of God. In this sense, God is incomprehensible. It is not that we cannot understand anything about him at all, but that he can be known only as far as he has revealed himself.
Theologians fall into error, and I would say heresy and blasphemy, when they say that we cannot understand even God's written revelation. But they are often vague and inconsistent on this point. In any case, the important issue right now is to note that "incomprehensible" often means that we cannot understand everything about God, and not anything about God. And the doctrine is often introduced as an intrinsic characteristic of God's nature, or an attribute of God.
Regarding the terminology, the word "incomprehensible" could be misleading, since it can be, and often is, used in two different ways. The first definition in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, designated as archaic, is "having or subject to no limits." This definition is appropriate to the doctrine, since we indeed admit that we cannot know the totality of God because he is infinite. However, the second definition, not archaic, is "impossible to comprehend: unintelligible." This is not the idea that we wish to convey by the doctrine. There are indeed theologians who at times affirm that God is incomprehensible in this sense, but we have said enough about them by this point – Scripture exposes their false humility. God and his revelation are not unintelligible. Since the first definition is archaic, perhaps Webster's New World Dictionary is correct in reversing the order, so that its first definition for the word is "not comprehensible; that cannot be understood; obscure or unintelligible." Again, we must not say that God and his revelation are incomprehensible in this sense.
The point is that the primary meaning for "incomprehensible" is now "unintelligible." And this is the first meaning that comes to mind when many believers and unbelievers learn of the doctrine. If this is what we mean, then we are wrong. But if this is not what we mean, then we are misleading our audience and compromising the faith. Believers who struggle against assaults from outsiders as well as their own doubts will think that we have no answers for them. And unbelievers who already think that Christianity is irrational and that Christians are simpletons will receive confirmation for their suspicion – their own theologians call God and his revelation "unintelligible," which is not very far from "complete nonsense."
Our only option is to disown the theologians and believers who speak this way (they do not represent the Christian faith), and restate our doctrine in accordance with Scripture – that God has revealed himself in a clear and coherent way, and in a way suited to the human intellect, that we understand much about God and his revelation, that we are able to answer all questions and challenges against the faith, and that whereas non-Christians stand in blindness and ignorance, we proclaim the fullness of the will of God to them from a position of knowledge and authority (Acts 17:23).
To correct this problem of misleading terminology, we can either subsume this doctrine under the "knowability" of God (and while we are on the subject, perhaps "understandability" is a better word?), or subsume it under the "infinity" of God. He is infinite, but intelligible and understandable. He has spoken abundantly and clearly to mankind. And it is from this foundation of revelation, knowledge, and understanding that we proclaim, "Now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30).
Regarding the category, we should note that the incomprehensibility of God is in fact an attribute of man. If a cat cannot fully understand me, it does not mean that incomprehensibility is inherent in me, or that it is one of my attributes. If I could be fully understood, even if only in principle or if only by God, then incomprehensibility is not one of my attributes.
God is incomprehensible to his creatures, but since he is omniscient, he is not incomprehensible to himself. Since he fully understands himself, incomprehensibility cannot be one of his intrinsic qualities. He is not incomprehensible; we find him incomprehensible. And the divine attribute that renders him incomprehensible to us is his infinity, not an intrinsic attribute of incomprehensibility.
If there were no creatures, God would still be triune, spiritual, eternal, self-existent, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and so on. But there would be no one to find him incomprehensible. He would still be infinite, and his infinite understanding would fully comprehend his own infinite being.