In his taut, tidy, technical study Origen and the Emergence of Divine Simplicity before Nicaea, Pui Him Ip situates the doctrine of divine simplicity—God’s indivisibility and self-consistency—in historical context. Rather than analyze the doctrine in artificial abstraction or retrospectively from the vantage point of Nicene orthodoxy, Ip undertakes to study its original “doctrinal ecology.” By understanding the doctrine of divine simplicity’s conceptual lineage, from Plato to Origen of Alexandria, Ip argues we can assess its meaning and apparent tensions with the doctrine of the Trinity with more acuity.
Ip begins by tracing the concept of divine simplicity to Plato’s Republic, particularly sections 380d-383c, the “locus classicus of the idea of simplicity in antiquity” (17). He highlights the difference between metaphysical simplicity (God’s incorporeality and immutability) and ethical simplicity (God’s self-consistency and trustworthiness), a distinction he invokes throughout the study. From there Ip analyzes the transposition of the doctrine of simplicity into Middle Platonism, relying on Alcinous and Philo of Alexander as representative (30). The key change, he notes, is the shift in emphasis from ethical to metaphysical simplicity (46), thereby setting the stage for its reception into the ante-Nicene period (that is, before the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE), where the doctrine faced the “ante-Nicene Trinitarian problematic” (49): “If God is simple, what is the consequence for understanding the language of the Father-Son relation emerging out of Scripture” (49)? Here Ip turns to Irenaeus for insight, identifying “Valentinian emission” as the theological error that the doctrine of divine simplicity refutes. Irenaeus’ “identity thesis” posits God’s indivisibility, which precludes Valentinian theogenesis (65-67).
Finally, to complete the pre-Origenian picture, Ip shifts focus to the Monarchian controversy, with its “concern for the unity of God,” which it shares with divine simplicity (71). In its various forms, Monarchianism identified the Father and Son, collapsing the difference between them to protect monotheism. At the heart of the controversy lies the hermeneutical question of the divine speaker in various passages in scripture, entitled “prosopological exegesis.” Ip invokes three “anti-Monarchians”—Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian—to uphold the distinction between Father and Son without sliding into Valentinianism (77). The dual pressures of affirming the distinction between the Father and Son (contra Monarchianism) whilst denying the division between Father and Son via generation (contra Valentianism) sets the stage for Origen’s “metaphysical-ethical synthesis” (85).
Origen, nicknamed Adamantius (“the man of steel,” the spiritual and theological superman of the early church) by his contemporaries, inherits and inhabits this problematic (85). Origen, Ip argues, “intertwines” ethical and metaphysical simplicity (86). Ip offers an extended analysis of each based on his reading of Peri Archōn and concludes that God’s “simple intellectual existence” and “perfect constancy” (114) secures divine transcendence, regulates the exegesis of disputed prosopological passages, and offers a roadmap for the soul: moral, spiritual, and intellectual integration, mirroring the life of God (118). Origen’s doctrine of divine simplicity, based on his careful interpretation of Christological titles, ought to be interpreted as anti-Monarchian, not proto-subordinationist. Thus, Origen’s deployment of divine simplicity represents an attempt to chart a middle course between Monarchianism and Valentinianism.
Theologically, Ip aims to deepen and correct contemporary understandings of the doctrine of divine simplicity by tracing its philosophical and theological genealogy (189-190). He situates the doctrine in its foundational philosophical and theological contexts, particularly the “ante-Nicene doctrinal ecology” (191): “The decisive insight that has emerged from my argument is that before Nicaea, divine simplicity assumed two roles in the context of the Father-Son relation [viz., anti-Valentinian and anti-Monarchian]” (193). Ip helpfully schematizes many of his complex arguments in numeric lists, distilling them to their core meaning and interrelation, which enables readers to track them better as he constructs his thesis. He also includes several tables and figures to illustrate and diagram key points. While at times the argument unfolds in a patchwork manner, Ip sews all the pieces together into a fascinating theological tapestry. Origen and the Emergence of Divine Simplicity before Nicaea is a first-rate study of an ironically complex doctrine.
Mark S.M. Scott is an associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies and Theology at Stonehill College.
Mark Scott
Date Of Review:
June 29, 2024
