Describing The Indescribable God

Theology is an attempt to describe God. Have you ever thought about how treacherous this task is? How can we, with our limited language, dare to describe a God who has no limits? Yet God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible, written in human words. How then should we view the nature of the Bible’s descriptions of God? In other words, how closely does our language about God match who He truly is? This is not a trivial question. If we get it wrong, our theology will be distorted. But if we understand it rightly, not only will we guard ourselves from error, but we will see God’s grace towards us in a deeper way. Hence, this question of our language about God gives us an occasion to worship Him more. 

In this article, I will map out three possible approaches to our language of God. The first two options may have some appeal but are ultimately dangerous. The third option has the most biblical support, and it also shines a spotlight on God’s infinite grace towards us. 

Univocal terms have identical meanings. When we use human terms to describe God, do those terms have an identical meaning in God as they do in us? Perhaps a few examples will illustrate the point. If our language about God is univocal, that would mean: 

God’s love is the same as our love. 

God’s wrath is the same as our wrath. 

God’s changing of his mind is the same as our changing of minds. 

Those statements are dangerous because they make God too much like humans. They obscure the distinction between the Creator and the creature. God’s Word repeatedly teaches that He is infinitely above us, such that we cannot fully comprehend Him.

• Isaiah 55:8-9, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” 
• Psalm 145:3, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable.”
• Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”

We can spend forever exploring God’s greatness and never reach the end. We can know Him more deeply every day for all eternity, and there will always be more of Him to know. He is the infinite God, and we are finite creatures. 

Thus, if  I say “God is wise,” and “my pastor is wise,” the word “wise” cannot have an identical meaning with God as it does with my pastor. That would make God comprehensible. It would blur the distinction between God and humans. So, if our words describing God should not be taken univocally, what about the opposite option? 

Equivocal terms have completely different meanings. So if our words describing God were equivocal, God’s love would be nothing like human love. 

An example of an equivocal approach to theology is the via negativa (negative way). This approach talks about God by describing what He is not. So, He is not finite; He is not a body; He is not changeable; He is not dependent.

Unlike the first option, this approach upholds God’s incomprehensibility and emphasizes the distinction between Creator and creature. However, if we say all our language about God is nothing like who God actually is, we slip into another danger: we make God completely distant from the universe and humanity. 

Scripture affirms that God is present and active in this world. He relates to us on a personal level. The incarnation of Christ demonstrates God’s intimate involvement in the plight of the fallen world. Matthew 1:23, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

Furthermore, God reveals himself in his written Word. The infinite, incomprehensible God stoops down to our level and describes himself in ways our limited minds can relate to. Theologians call God’s self-revelation an act of condescension and accommodation. He condescends to our level. He accommodates our human language. He describes himself as merciful, faithful, righteous, and so on. If God’s self-descriptions did not have at least some correspondence to their human meanings, then why did He describe himself at all?

In summary, the univocal and equivocal views have opposite problems. On one hand, if we say God’s wisdom is the same as our wisdom, we undermine God’s incomprehensibility. We make Him finite. He ceases to be God. On the other hand, if we say God’s wisdom has no similarity to ours, we undermine God’s self-revelation. If God’s words about Himself mean anything at all, they must have at least something in common with how we understand those words. 

This leads to the final option: the analogical view. 

The analogical view strikes a middle ground: similar yet different. Our words describing God mean something similar yet different than our human understanding. So, God’s love is somewhat like our love, but it is also infinitely greater than our love. Scripture itself supports this view, as it qualifies its own language about God. It speaks of God in analogous ways. Here are two examples:

1. Scripture qualifies God’s emotions. 1 Samuel 15:11, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” In the same chapter, 1 Samuel 15:29, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” When God says He regrets making Saul King, He reminds us that it is not the same as when humans experience regret. It is analogous. 
2. Scripture qualifies God’s presence. ​​Acts 7:45-50,  “Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?’” God was present in the earthly temple, but this does not mean the same thing as when humans are present. When we are present somewhere, we are not present elsewhere. When I am in the kitchen, I am not in the living room. But God is present everywhere at once, so when He describes Himself as dwelling in a particular place, He is using an analogy. He is speaking of a covenant presence, that is, a place where His people experience His unique blessing. 

In viewing our language about God analogically, we avoid the errors of the univocal and equivocal views. view God’s. We uphold the distinction between the Creator and creature, and we maintain that God’s self-revelation is not meaningless. We also affirm that we are made in the Image of God: that we represent God and thus are like Him in some ways. Yet we are not God and will never become God. 

The infinite God has stooped down to our level. The incomprehensible God wants us to know Him. He lovingly speaks to us in our limited language. This revelation is an act of God’s grace, for we do not deserve a relationship with God. He takes the initiative to bridge the gap between us, caused by our own sin. He grants us the ability to speak of Him in meaningful ways, to worship Him for who he truly is, despite the fact that he is far greater than we can ever imagine. God has given us language to describe Him, and in doing so He testifies to His immense love for us.