An Exegetico-Dogmatic Case for Divine Simplicity (I)

A. ‘The LORD our God, the LORD is one’: Divine Singularity and Divine Simplicity

In this chapter on ways in which two of God’s attributes entail his simplicity, we will look first at divine singularity. Here exegetical tracings of the scope of God’s sovereignty, the relative (ad alterum) descriptions of God in contradistinction to the gods of the nations, and the occasional absolute (ad se) and positive descriptions of God in himself as the only God are drawn together to search out the character of God’s singularity. Though these threads are somewhat artificially considered in distinction from one another, this approach has at least some organizational value. From here, the movement from exegetical comment on various texts to dogmatic elaboration guides us to the claims of the doctrine of God’s simplicity.

i. Biblical Teaching

The theme of the universal scope of God’s sovereignty begins with the creation account in Genesis 1, which is, inter alia, an implicit spurning of the polytheistic theogonies on offer in the ancient Near East, opening with the simple statement that ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (1:1).

[W]e have overemphasized the similarities between Gen 1 and the other ancient cosmogonies without fully appreciating the differences. This text soars above them in such a way as to deny implicitly any possibility of the theologies expressed in Egyptian or Mesopotamian accounts. If we consider it an ideological polemic, we must admit that it is not specifically so and only indirectly. It contains no theomachy, or cosmic conflict among the gods, or

victory enthronement motif. Both are excluded by ‘in the beginning when God created…’! Israel’s God has no rivals. There can be no struggle with forces opposed to his actions or corresponding to his power. There can be no victory enthronement motif because God’s victory was never in doubt; rather, God has never not been enthroned. There can be no enthronement portrait here because God has not become sovereign; he has simply never been less than sovereign.287 As God makes, separates, and names by sheer fiat, he demonstrates himself to be the Lord of all the spheres of reality (1:2-25).288 Of course, the narration of the creation of humanity in 1:26 recounts God speaking in the plural (~d"a' hf,[/n: ~yhil{a/ rm,aYOw:), but, Gordon

Wenham observes, ‘Gen 1 is distinctly antimythological in its thrust.’ It therefore opposes ‘ancient Near Eastern views of creation’, and ‘modern commentators are quite agreed that Gen 1:26 could never have been taken by the author of this chapter in a polytheistic sense.’289 Suggestions for interpretation, then, include that ‘God is surrounded by His angelic host,’ in which case ‘[t]his is the Israelite version of the polytheistic assemblies of the pantheon – monotheized and depaganized,’ or that perhaps this plural form signals God’s immanent fullness, self-deliberation, or self-exhortation.290

As corruption intensifies throughout the earth, Yahweh takes it upon himself to restructure all of human existence by the flood and Noahic covenant (6:1-9:17) and then ultimately to bless all peoples through one man, Abram, and his descendents (12:1-3). When the mysterious priest Melchizedek appears in chapter 14, he blesses the God of

287 _{Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge}

University Press, 2009), p. 32.

288 _{So, e.g., Bruce Waltke (Genesis: A Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], p.}

56): ‘Naming…is an indication of dominion.’

289 _{Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987),}

p. 28.

290 _{The quote is from Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadephia:}

Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p. 12. The options are helpfully delineated in Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 27-8; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1- 17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 132-4.

Abram as ‘the Most High’ (!Ayl.[, lae) and as the ‘Maker’ or ‘Possessor’ (hnEq{{) of the

heavens and the earth (14:19).291 Later in the book of Genesis, yet another glimpse of the universality of God’s sovereignty is given in the story of Joseph, wherein God

orchestrates a famine in the mighty land of Egypt and at the same time preserves that land and the people of Jacob by way of Joseph’s unlikely rise to power (41:28-32; 45:5-8; 50:20).

In the period of the divided kingdom with the threat of Assyrian oppression looming over Judah, Hezekiah prays to Yahweh as both the ‘God of Israel’ and ‘the God alone (^D>b;l. ~yhil{a/h') to all of the kingdoms of the earth’ (2 Kings 19:15; cf. Isa. 37:14-

20).292 In the Psalms God reigns over all the nations, though they may claim otherwise about their own deities and rulers, and judges them in righteousness (Ps. 2:1-12; 9:5-8, 15-20; 33:10-17; 96:7-13). The Psalmists therefore invite all the peoples to bow before God in awe and praise (67:1-7; 99:1-3; 148:1-14).293 This is echoed in the prophecy of Isaiah as the worship of Yahweh is extended to Egypt and Assyria (Isa. 19:19-25).

291 _{On the semantic shades of the verb}

hn"q' in Genesis 14:19, 22, see, e.g., E. Lipinski, ‘hn"q'’, in G. Johannes Botterweck et al. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 13, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 62-3.

292 _{In his commentary on Isaiah, Campegius Vitringa marks ‘the reign of God to be}

universal, while to their own gods, or the demons which they worship for gods, all the peoples everywhere attribute a particular reign. His reign is single, true, and one, indeed only God presides over all things’ (Commentarius in Librum Prophetiarum Jesaiae, Pars Posterior [Herbornae Nassaviorum, 1722], cap. XXXVII,vs. 17, pp. 378-79). For recent concurrence, see Christopher Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 248-50.

293 _{‘Israel’s singers knew well that the unexplained choice of a unique people was}

conditioned by an ulterior purpose: happiness for all the families of the earth (Gen 12:3)….With utmost joy, the psalmists recited the fabulous events through which the Hebrew ancestors were invested with worldwide responsibility’ (Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003], p. 49).

Surprisingly, Yahweh is able to anoint and send Cyrus, king of a pagan land, to execute his will in subduing nations and enabling the people of God to return to Jerusalem (44:28-45:4). Thus, Yahweh invites the peoples, whose gods cannot save, to repent and inherit salvation (45:20-25). Toward the end of Isaiah’s prophecy, Yahweh declares himself to be the eschatological light who illumines the world for Israel and calls upon the peoples either to serve Israel or face destruction (60:1-22). Even as the Israelites are under Babylonian government, Daniel exalts God as the one who reigns over history and removes and enthrones kings (Dan. 2:21). Even the proud Nebuchadnezzar says of God the Most High that he executes his will in heaven and on earth with no one to question or impede him (4:34-35).

In the New Testament, Paul’s speech at the Areopagus accentuates the universality of God’s dominion by calling him ‘the God who made the world and all things in it’ and ‘the Lord of heaven and earth’ who made every nation of human beings and fixed the boundaries of their existence in time and space (Acts 17:24-26). In the epistle to the Romans, God is the one to whom the entire world is accountable (3:19) and the one who oversees the justification of Jew and Gentile alike (3:29-30). The

unfathomably wise and sovereign plan of God encompasses both the ingrafting of the Gentiles and the salvation of Israel, all redounding to the glory of God (11:1-36). Finally, the absolute catholicity of God’s sovereignty is repeated throughout the book of

Revelation. Visions of the heavenly throne reveal unqualified, ceaseless worship of God (and God in Christ) alone who reigns in creation, redemption, and judgment (4:1-5:14). Later the elders fall before God for his overcoming the nations in wrath and judgment

and rewarding the prophets and saints (11:15-18). God is the ‘king of the nations’ and receives the worship of all nations (15:3-4).294

The distinction between God and the gods of the nations has already been broached, but we may consider it more directly in the book of Deuteronomy. In chapter four, Moses supplies the rationale for obedience to God by reminding Israel that God brought them out of Egypt so that they might know that ‘Yahweh, he is God’ and that ‘there is no other beside him’ (ADb;l.mi dA[ !yae) (4:35). Again, ‘Yahweh, he is God in the

heavens above and upon the earth below’ and ‘there is no other’ (dA[ !yae) (4:39). Because

Yahweh is the only true God, the Decalogue commands that Israel should not have other gods (~yrIxea] ~yhil{a,) before or beside him (5:7).295 Because Yahweh is not just one God among many but is the ‘God of gods’ (~yhil{a,h' yhel{a,), Israel must circumcise their hearts and submit to him (10:16-17). Previously Israel made sacrifices to demons which were a ‘no-god’ (h:l{a/ al{), ‘gods they did not know’, ‘new ones who recently came’ (32:17). They provoked Yahweh with ‘no-god’ (lae-al{b.) and with their idols (32:21). Against such false deities and false practices, Yahweh emphasizes, ‘I, I am he, and there is no god beside me’ (ydIM'[i) (32:39).

Such themes are amplified in the book of Isaiah. Numerous times the gods of the nations are reduced to mere ‘idols’ and ‘images’ produced by human hands, and these are forcefully depicted as lifeless, unable to move, speak, or save (19:1; 21:9; 31:7; 37:18-19;

294 _{As G. K. Beale wisely comments (The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the} Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999], pp. 797-8), in the face of ongoing rebellion against God and of the final judgment of God, the ‘all’ here does not mean that ‘“all without exception” will worship the true God but ‘“all” without distinction’.

295 _{Gordon McConville points out that Deuteronomy 4 ‘anticipates the First}

Commandment’ (Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary [Leicester: Apollos; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002], p. 112).

40:19; 41:21-29; 42:8, 17; 44:9-20; 45:16, 20; 46:6-7; 48:5; 57:13). The theogonies of the ancient Near East posited the formation of multiple gods, but before Yahweh ‘no god was formed’ and after him ‘no god will be’ (43:10).296 Yahweh made the heavens and the earth and before him these are nothing (40:12-26). Strikingly, then, he is the one who made those who make the idols (Isa. 17:7-8). Underscoring that he alone can tell what is to come and can inexorably accomplish his purposes, God queries, ‘Who is like me?’ (44:6-8; 46:5, 9-11).

However, a number of authors contend that, even in its prima facie monotheistic moments, the Old Testament does not envisage the God of Israel to be the only deity in existence.297 For Moberly, Deuteronomy 4 should not be made to answer the question ‘Do any deities other than YHWH in any way exist?’. For, if this passage were intended to provide such an answer, the Hebrew would not read dA[ !yae but rather rxea; !yae. Yet,

Moberly argues, the existence of ~yrIxea/ ~yhil{a/ is actually presupposed in the warnings against the pursuit of other gods (e.g., 5:7; 6:14; 17:2-5). Therefore, the statement dA[ !yae asserts something like ‘there is nowhere else to go.’ It is not that ‘alternatives are as such non-existent’, but rather that ‘to look elsewhere than to YHWH is misguided and futile.’ There are other deities that present themselves as appealing alternatives, and it is in precisely such a milieu that a claim like dA[ !yae is uttered to hearten the people of God.298

296 _{See Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker, Old}

Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p. 123; John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2005), p. 203.

297 _{For example, Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’}

(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Moberly, ‘How Appropriate Is “Monotheism” as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?’, pp. 216-34.

298 _{Moberly, ‘How Appropriate Is “Monotheism” as a Category for Biblical}

Likewise, not all exegetes are convinced that Isaiah so decisively annuls the existence of other deities. Moberly points out that in 46:9 ‘there is no god again’ (~yhiOla/ dA[ !yae) is glossed by ‘and none like me’. For Moberly, Isaiah does not deny that other gods exist but only that other gods can compare to Yahweh. Moreover, Babylon makes such a claim about itself in 47:8, 10, and surely, Moberly suggests, Babylon does not mean that ‘other great cities did not in fact exist but rather that other cities were insignificant in comparison with Babylon.’299

In response to Moberly, it is not obvious that the Hebrew dA[ !yae in Deuteronomy 4 does not have the same force that ~rIxea] ~yhiOla/ would have. If there is no god ‘again’ or ‘in addition’, this is materially the same as ‘there is no other god.’300 Further, one cannot resolve the tension between Yahweh’s being the true deity and the simultaneous

recognition of other gods by consigning the theological meaning of the claim dA[ !yae to the moral or existential realm so that it concerns only the monolatrous obligations of the people. For, in Deuteronomy itself, the difference between Yahweh and the other gods is not merely that Yahweh is the one to whom Israel can and should turn but that Yahweh is in reality the only one who is uncreated, can see and hear, can take a nation out of the clutches of an empire with signs and wonders and establish that nation elsewhere by displacing mighty peoples (Deut. 4:28, 34, 38). He is the only one who can truly protect a people, kill and vivify, wound and heal (32:37-39). As Moberly himself ultimately acknowledges, the difference between Yahweh and other gods is not reducible to human

299 _{Moberly, ‘How Appropriate Is “Monotheism” as a Category for Biblical}

Interpretation?’, p. 230.

300 _{Compare the use of}

dA[ in Genesis 19:12; 43:6; Amos 6:10. Since Deuteronomy 4:35, 39 concerns God as God and not under some other determination, the repetition or continuation in the word dA[ respects deity and has the sense of ‘there is no god again’ or ‘there is no god in addition.’

religious obligation and allegiance but is objective and evinced in the vigor and power of Yahweh in contrast to the impotence of the other gods. The other gods may exist ‘in the faith of other nations’, but they are reduced in Deuteronomy to non-entities or, at most, to entities that are not truly divine.301 As Turretin puts it, the God of Scripture is the only God secundum esse and proprie, though others may be ‘gods’ legome,nwjand secundum dici.302

Isaiah’s exposure of the disparity between Israel’s God and the other gods also suggests that the others’ divine status is merely putative. As we have seen, this disparity in Isaiah turns on the objective fact that the other gods are idols which are created and lifeless entities, unable to move, speak, save, or tell what is to come (31:7; 37:18-19; 40:19; 41:21-29; 42:8, 17; 44:9-20; 45:20; 46:6-7; 48:5; 57:13). That these cannot compare to Yahweh entails that they are really no gods at all; they are gods only

legome,nwj. A similar dynamic is at work in the (false and hubristic) claim of Babylon:

the greatness of Babylon so shames the alleged greatness of other nations and cities that one is encouraged to wonder whether they are truly great nations and cities at all. These nations may exist, but, according to Babylon, they have no rightful claim to political eminence. For Isaiah, then, while other gods may in some sense exist, they do not exist as legitimate claimants to deity. In the face of contemporary trends in biblical

301 _{Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the}

Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 143. John Goldingay (Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel’s Gospel [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; Paternoster: Milton Keyes, 2003], p. 46) writes that ‘there is only one being who is really entitled to be described as “God”, though [the First Testament] sometimes gives the courtesy title “gods” to other heavenly beings.’

302 _{Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, III, qu. 3, 4, p. 199. To elaborate, the}

proposition ‘other gods exist’ is false whether the subject has no referent or the subject does not resonate with the denotation of the subject.

scholarship that urge caution in speaking of ‘monotheism’ in the Old Testament, it is important not to understate the biblical authors’ cognizance of and recurring testimony to Yahweh being the only true God and deliverer and the only one to be feared, believed, and praised in contrast to the other so-called gods.

In the New Testament, Paul writes candidly of the non-existence of other gods or idols. He affirms what appears to be an axiom of the Corinthian church, ‘that no idol is in the world and that no god is but one’ (1 Cor. 8:4).303 To be sure, there may be many ‘so-called gods’ (lego,menoi qeoi.) in heaven and on earth (8:5). Yet, Paul writes in a Christologically-expanded version of the Shema, ‘for us there is one God the Father from whom are all things…and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things’ (8:6).304 If the ‘for us’ (h`mi/n) at the beginning of 8:6 has the appearance of a reversion to

henotheism, the apostle follows with the observation that the oneness of God and of Christ’s lordship is not ‘knowledge among all’ (8:7a), implying that this oneness is not merely a subjective theological preference but rather a liberating truth that ought to be embraced by all human beings. It is by sheer ‘custom’ that some eat idol meat as though really belonging to an idol and thus suffer the defilement of conscience (8:7b).

Later in 1 Corinthians Paul takes the history of Israel in the Old Testament as a warning against idolatry and disobedience (10:1-13). In subsequent exhortation, he pointedly reiterates the singularity of God in demonstrating the irreconcilability of

303 _{As Richard Hays points out (First Corinthians, Interpretation [Louisville:}

Westminster John Knox Press, 1993], p. 139), the problem that Paul addresses here lies not with the slogan of the Corinthian church but with their application of it.

304 _{On this text and its connection to the Old Testament confession of God’s oneness, see}

N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 120-36; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: 2008), pp. 210-18.

partaking at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons. The bread and cup of the Lord’s Supper are a participation in the body and blood of Christ (10:14-17), while those partaking of the sacrifices in Israel were participants in the altar (10:18). However, while one might expect Paul then to say straightforwardly that those partaking of pagan

sacrifices are participants of competing deities, he clarifies that an idol is not ‘something’ (ti,) (10:19). Instead, pagan sacrifices are actually offered to demons (10:20-22). The non-existence of other gods in 8:4-7 is not reneged here but rather augmented with the note that idolatrous worship is a venue of demonic activity.305 God’s singularity appears in the epistle to the Galatians also. Paul writes that when these believers did not know God, they were enslaved ‘to ones who by nature (fu,sei) are not gods’ (4:8). Again, the