Basic HTML Version
53
8:6. Similarly he writes to Timothy, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,” I Tim. 2:5. Other passages do not stress the numerical unity of God
as much as they do His uniqueness. This is the case in the well known words of Deut. 6:4, “Hear,
O Israel; Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” The Hebrew word ’echad, translated by “one” may
also be rendered “an only,” the equivalent of the German “einig” and the Dutch “eenig.” And
this would seem to be a better translation. Keil stresses that fact that this passage does not
teach the numerical unity of God, but rather that Jehovah is the only God that is entitled to the
name Jehovah. This is also the meaning of the term in Zech. 14:9. The same idea is beautifully
expressed in the rhetorical question of Ex. 15:11, “Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the
gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” This excludes all
polytheistic conceptions of God.
2. THE UNITAS SIMPLICITATIS.
While the unity discussed in the preceding sets God apart from
other beings, the perfection now under consideration is expressive of the inner and qualitative
unity of the Divine Being. When we speak of the simplicity of God, we use the term to describe
the state or quality of being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts, and
therefore from compositeness. It means that God is not composite and is not susceptible of
division in any sense of the word. This implies among other things that the three Persons in the
Godhead are not so many parts of which the Divine essence is composed, that God’s essence
and perfections are not distinct, and that the attributes are not superadded to His essence.
Since the two are one, the Bible can speak of God as light and life, as righteousness and love,
thus identifying Him with His perfections. The simplicity of God follows from some of His other
perfections; from His Self-existence, which excludes the idea that something preceded Him, as
in the case of compounds; and from His immutability, which could not be predicated of His
nature, if it were made up of parts. This perfection was disputed during the Middle Ages, and
was denied by Socinians and Arminians. Scripture does not explicitly assert it, but implies it
where it speaks of God as righteousness, truth, wisdom, light, life, love, and so on, and thus
indicates that each of these properties, because of their absolute perfection, is identical with
His Being. In recent works on theology the simplicity of God is seldom mentioned. Many
theologians positively deny it, either because it is regarded as a purely metaphysical
abstraction, or because, in their estimation, it conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. Dabney
believes that there is no composition in the substance of God, but denies that in Him substance
and attributes are one and the same. He claims that God is no more simple in that respect than
finite spirits.[Syst. and Polem. Theol., p. 43f.]
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.
What different conceptions of the Absolute do we meet
with in philosophy? Can the Absolute of philosophy always be identified with the God of
theology? How does Bradley distinguish between the two? How is the finite God of James,