Jonatán Simmons offers a new perspective on the ‘recent wave’ (p. 1) of scholarship investigating Irenaeus’ doctrine of divine simplicity. He identifies his position as a middle option between conflicting proposals by John Behr and Anthony Briggman. In this volume, the published version of his dissertation completed at the Australian Catholic University, Simmons builds his argument from two presuppositions. First, that ‘For Irenaeus of Lyons, the concept of divine simplicity is central for describing God and God’s interaction with humans’ (p. 1). This is important for the volume, as the author argues that divine simplicity is foundational to the two theological themes that may arguably be the most important to Irenaeus (theology proper and divine interaction, or, metaphysics and economy). Simons offers the following thesis: ‘that Irenaeus’ claim, that God is simple, is both based on scripture and is used to interpret scripture. It is used to conceive of both God in se and God’s interaction with creation’ (p. 1).
The project is divided into two parts. The first attempts to demonstrate the presence and importance of the concept of divine simplicity throughout Adversus haereses; the second explores the implications of simplicity on Irenaeus’ theology.
There are two chapters in part i. The first sets out to achieve two goals: to demonstrate the under-appreciated theological insights of Adversus haereses book ii, and, second, to argue for the theological centrality of divine simplicity to that chapter. The former may seem an unnecessary excursus, but not so, according to Simons. He reasons that by emphasising the neglected theological value of book ii, the importance of simplicity is revealed — both in that section of Adversus haereses and throughout.
Chapter ii is the lengthiest of the book, and for good reason. It is in this section that divine simplicity is defined and illustrated. Simons offers a close reading of Adversus haereses 2.13.1–10 to unpack the various ways Irenaeus demonstrates a robust understanding of this key theological principle. The chapter is the heart of the book and is likely the most detailed analysis of this important Irenaean text ever undertaken.
The second part of the volume begins with chapter iii. The first of the ‘theological implications’ to be explored is that of ‘containment’ – a metaphor used frequently by scholars to describe Irenaeus’ understanding of the relationship between the omnipotent creator God and his material creation. Simons agrees the metaphor is an apt and important one, but argues that it is dependent on his account of divine simplicity.
Chapter iv examines one theme that has previously been considered in view of divine simplicity: divine generation. Simons’s contribution is significant, as he attempts to argue that Irenaeus provides a degree of distinction between the generator and the generated that has generally been overlooked. Divine simplicity is, of course, the key to this argument. Through a consideration of the divine names and powers, the chapter examines the ways simplicity and generation were expressed prior to Irenaeus, both among early Christian writers and in the philosophical schools of the day.
Chapter v examines what is perhaps the most well-known of Irenaean metaphors, that of the ‘hands of God’. This is an important chapter, for, on the one hand, the metaphor is ‘considered to be the climax of Irenaeus’ theology’ (p. 140). On the other hand, it is also the teaching which seems the most potentially difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of divine simplicity. Through a careful reading of Adversus haereses 4.20 Simons argues that the doctrine of divine simplicity allows Irenaeus’ reader to understand the ‘hands’ motif as describing God as a ‘unity with distinction’, a theme frequently explored throughout the volume.
In the sixth and final chapter, Simons returns to the topic of the divine names and powers. He examines six key texts in an effort to reinforce his central thesis: that divine simplicity is foundational to Irenaeus’ theological vision. The divine names and powers are thus presented through the lens of simplicity in order to show that both point to ‘One and the Same’ God. To argue the point, Simons returns to his favoured description of ‘mutually entailment’. The expression is said to mirror Irenaeus’ concern for unity with distinction in the Godhead, whether describing the varied divine names or powers.
Jonatán Simons has certainly provided a more robust study of divine simplicity than has previously been attempted. The great strength of this volume is its careful, nuanced reading of the key texts, and persistently thoughtful engagement with the relevant scholarship. It is an important contribution not only to the field of Irenaeus studies, but to second- and third-century theology as well.
Another strength of the book is the simplicity of its thesis and the extremely focused, logical and beautifully structured arguments. The stated purpose of the work was to demonstrate the centrality of divine simplicity to Irenaeus’ theology and Simons has made a strong case in support of this claim.
Despite the simplicity of the book’s arrangement, the subject matter is rather dense, which leads to the one inevitable weakness of the book (through no fault of the author). As a work so narrowly focused as this, many readers may find it inaccessible. This is the reality for most dissertations, however, and should not diminish the fine work offered here by Jonatán Simons.
