World Christianity
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 61, No. 2 – Spring 2019
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
By Jordan P. Barrett. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. 228 + xiii pages. Hardcover, $79.00
Jordan Barrett addresses a critical ancient doctrine which has a long pedigree within Christian thought but has recently sparked a contentious debate among scholars. This young theologian thus takes on an important and difficult task, and the Emerging Scholars series should be commended for choosing to publish his monograph, a revision of a Wheaton doctoral dissertation written under Kevin Vanhoozer.
Barrett argues the doctrine of divine simplicity should not be rejected as an imposition from classical philosophy but must be received as rooted in Scripture. To prove his point, he first surveys contemporary critics of divine simplicity; second, traces the history of the doctrine’s reception in the early, medieval, and modern periods; third, discusses a biblical basis for its development; and, fourth, boldly offers his own Trinitarian account for divine simplicity. Did he demonstrate his thesis?
In chapter one, Barrett surveys the contemporary scene. Numerous well-respected authors have rejected divine simplicity, including Robert Jenson, Alvin Plantinga, and John Feinberg. These critics appeal to their readings of Augustine and Aquinas, doubt it has a biblical basis, and believe it compromises other major doctrines. Yet others, including Colin Gunton, John Frame, and Eberhard Jüngel, retain the doctrine but with major revision. Revisionists opine that divine simplicity is too dependent upon Hellenistic philosophy and reframe it according to the gospel conception of God. Finally, a “minority” has stepped forward to defend divine simplicity, including Peter Sanlon, Stephen R. Holmes, and Steven J. Duby. Their defenses range in presentation and sophistication but assert it is fundamental to the Christian conception of God.
In the second, third, and fourth chapters, the author traces the construal of the doctrine according to various patristic, medieval, and Reformation theologians. While the fathers may have borrowed from philosophy, they derived divine simplicity from scriptural exegesis in order to repudiate the rise of heresies. In particular, the claim of Eunomius to name the divine essence prompted the Cappadocians to construct a corollary doctrine from the divine name(s) and God the Trinity’s operations, distinguishing the persons without dividing the essence. (This correlation informs Barrett’s later proposal.) Similar conclusions are drawn through a survey of Augustine, which includes exegeses of 1 Corinthians 1:24 regarding the simple richness of the divine attributes shared within the Trinity (58–61) and of John 5:19 concerning the Trinity’s distinguishable yet inseparable operations (62–65). The chapter on the Middle Ages clears away misattributions of perfect being theology and rationalism and discusses Aquinas’s theological exegesis of the divine name in Exodus 3 (85–89). The chapter on Reformation developments focuses on the Reformed and their modern successors. The doctrine was either assumed or explicitly affirmed from Calvin through the Scholastics, while Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth provide helpful discussions. Both Bavinck and Barth stressed the transcendence and graciousness of God, who reveals a “richness” about himself that transcends both simplicity and multiplicity (124–25).
While the first four chapters of the book establish the doctrine’s historical and contemporary context, in the final two chapters Barrett offers his own contributions. First, in chapter five, he grounds the doctrine of divine simplicity within the biblical witness. Barrett believes there is a more direct biblical way to the doctrine than that provided by affiliating the doctrine with divine aseity or divine holiness (133–34). His strategy is to show that the name(s) of God and the inseparable operations of the three Persons of the Trinity provide a scriptural “pattern of judgments” (135–37) requiring the doctrine. Extending the introduction of the divine name, YHWH, in the book of Exodus (3:14, 6:6–8, 33:12–13), Barrett agrees that Exodus 34:6–7 is “the climax of the meaning and significance of the divine name” (145). Through this significant revelation, God’s various attributes provide “the fullest statement about the divine nature” (146). The way various Psalms treat the divine name doxologically fortifies this claim (147–50). Moreover, the New Testament includes Jesus and the entire Trinity within the name of the Lord, kyrios (150–54). Barrett concludes the divine name “is God himself in his self-revelation,” contains no contradictions, and requires “many different descriptions” to convey his fullness (154–55). The second part of chapter five turns to Scripture’s presentations of the work of the Trinity, evincing indivisible yet distinct operations which correlate with an indivisible yet distinguishable nature (156–60).
The author’s second major contribution is to provide a Trinitarian account of divine simplicity, which he established biblically in chapter five but develops dogmatically in chapter six. The “task” of divine simplicity is to “properly confess the nature of God set forth in Scripture in ways that avoid either dividing God into parts or removing all distinctions” (163). The nuances of Trinitarianism thus provide a parallel for the doctrine of divine simplicity. After drawing on medieval philosophy to navigate between the errors of realist identity and nominalist distinctions, his own “theological discernment” from the textual witness is presented (178). Barrett’s key theological innovation concerns a likeness between Trinity and essence, analogia diversitatis. By “analogy of diversity,” he means that “as the triune God is one nature in three distinct persons, so the simplicity of God affirms one nature in multiple perfections” (180). After summarizing seven implications of the analogy, he claims his proposal is a development within the tradition.
This book should be taken seriously by every theologian concerned with identifying properly who the God is whom true Christians say we worship. While there are yet other biblical routes to the doctrine of divine simplicity, and while Barrett’s proposal of analogia diversitatis will require widespread testing before it should be fully accepted, he has added a significant piece to the academic discussion on theology proper. Stylistically, this is a clean text, except that the author might have meant diversitatis rather than divinitatis in a few places (184, 187).
