Isaiah 45:5: An Exposition Utilizing Rational Thought
Jack Kettler
This study begins with Isaiah 45:5, then turns to relevant cross-references and selected commentary, and finally examines the language and rational thought as they bear on the passage’s monotheistic claim.
“I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me.” (Isaiah 45:5)
Cross-References
“You have been shown this in order to know that ‘the LORD is God’ and there is no one like him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35)
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39)
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
“Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” (Isaiah 44:8)
“So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4)
Additional Scriptures affirming that there is only one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 83:18; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 45:18; Mark 12:29, 32; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19.
Commentary Evidence
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Isaiah 45:5:
“I am the Lord, and there is none else. Whom thou, O Cyrus, for the words are directed to him, ought to own, serve, and worship:
there is no God besides me; in heaven or earth, in any of the countries conquered by thee, and thou rulest over; for though there were gods and lords many, so called, these were only nominal fictitious deities; not gods by nature, as he was; of which the following, as well as what is before said, is a proof:
I girded thee, though thou hast not known me; the Lord girded him with a royal girdle, a symbol of kingly power; he made him king over many nations; he girded him with strength, courage, and valour for war; and made him so expeditious, successful, and victorious, as he was, though a Heathen prince, and ignorant of him, in order to answer some valuable ends of his own glory, and the good of his people, and particularly for what follows.” (1)
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
(5) There is no God beside me. —Commonly, the formula is used in antithesis to polytheism. Possibly we may think of it here as in contrast with the dualism of Persia, or, if that be assigned to a later date, of Babylonia. (2)
Calvin’s Commentary
5. I am Jehovah. He confirms the preceding statement, and the repetition is not superfluous; for it was proper that it should be often repeated to Cyrus, that there is one God, by whose hands all rulers and nations are governed, that he might be drawn aside from all delusions and be converted to the God of Israel. Besides, it is clearly stated that we ought not to try to find divinity in any other; as if he had said, “Beware of ascribing this victory to idols, or forming any confused idea of a god such as men imagine; know that the God of Israel is the only author of this victory.” Although Cyrus did not profit by this admonition to such an extent as to leave his idols and devote himself to the true God, yet it made so deep an impression on his heart that he acknowledged Jehovah to be God and to possess the highest authority. At the same time, it was proper that they who were members of the Church should embrace this doctrine, that they might boldly despise all pretended gods. (3)
Language and Rational Thought
The present inquiry concerns the proper approach to language and the possibility of true knowledge. At the outset, it must be acknowledged that a creator/creature distinction holds. The Creator’s knowledge is exhaustive, original, and self-determining; the creature’s knowledge is finite and dependent on the Creator for correct interpretation. This distinction, however, does not entail that the words of Scripture possess one meaning for God and another for man. If so, human beings would have no certainty of true knowledge and would be left with the wholly other God of Neo-Orthodox Barthianism.
When the text of Isaiah 45:5 is examined, the question arises whether the words are to be understood in a straightforward, ordinary sense or whether God is employing cryptic codes or equivocation. A polytheist might contend that the assertion applies only to this world and does not address other deities elsewhere in the universe. Such an interpretation is not rational. If language may be used in this manner, the procedure is fundamentally destructive of language itself.
Nothing in the text qualifies the assertion “besides Me there is no God” to permit the existence of other gods elsewhere in the universe. Theology must not be permitted to introduce equivocation. Preconceived notions must not be imported into the text to be “proved.” If one equivocates on the Isaianic declarations of monotheism, there is no principled stopping point; a faulty approach to language will erode certainty of meaning throughout Scripture. If “besides Me there is no God” does not mean that there are no other gods, then no passage of Scripture can be accepted at face value.
Moreover, if the God of Isaiah 45:5 is merely one god among many, then He is lying when He declares, “beside Me there is no God.” If this God is omniscient, knows of other gods, yet asserts that He alone is God, the assertion is false. This is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent, or the slippery slope. The slope ultimately destroys language and leads to skepticism. An appeal to the word of a religious leader or leaders as a remedy for the alleged unreliability of biblical language is no solution. If the Word of God is unreliable, the word of man is likewise unreliable. Religious leaders and politicians have frequently said one thing publicly while meaning another.
If one’s approach to Scripture is one of equivocation, the following passages must be confronted:
“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)
“That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” (Hebrews 6:18)
Can God lie? If it is argued that Isaiah 45:5 has been mistranslated, or if the argument then shifts to claiming that the Hebrew text itself cannot be trusted, the burden of proof rests with the accuser. The extant manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, from multiple sources, have confirmed the reliability of Scripture. For further study, see “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity” by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.
It is necessary to examine the use of rational language and the Bible. The following section surveys quotations from the Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark on language, beginning with epistemology, the study of how we know.
Clark on Epistemology:
“A theologian’s epistemology controls his interpretation of the Bible. If his epistemology is not Christian, his exegesis will be systematically distorted. If he has no epistemology at all, his exegesis will be unsystematically distorted.” (4)
Clark observes that a false epistemology precludes the attainment of truth. Three primary theories of knowledge are generally recognized: (1) empiricism, the view that experience, especially the senses, is the only source of knowledge; (2) rationalism, the view that appeals to man’s independent reason as a source of knowledge; and (3) Scripturalism, the view that all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible. If one’s presuppositions or premises are non-Christian, a biblical conclusion or truth will never be reached.
Gordon Clark illustrates the necessity of biblical revelation and logical argument:
“When Paul in human Greek says that God justifies believers, did he speak the literal truth or some other, unknowable kind of truth that is not truth at all? A phrase similar to “human language” occurs frequently in other authors. They contrast “human logic” with “divine logic.” But do they dare make explicit what this phrase means? Human logic says, If all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. But if divine logic is different, then all men can be mortal and Socrates can be a man, yet Socrates will not be mortal. Or, again, if human mathematics says that two plus two is four, and if divine truth differs from ours, then for God two and two are five or ten or anything but four. The point here is that human logic and divine logic are identical. Human logic is a part of the divine image in man. It is God’s trademark stamped upon us. Only by rejecting the Biblical doctrine of God’s image can one contrast human language with divine language and divine logic with human. Finally, if human language cannot be literally true, any assertion “language is not literal” cannot be literally true. The position is self-refuting, and one can have little hope of explaining how “language formed on mythical patterns” can convey God’s truth.” (5)
In summary: Christians possess a coherent theory of knowledge. God has spoken. This is certain: God speaks in the Scriptures using human language and logically structured sentences, telling us the difference between right and wrong. The meaning of Scripture is the same for God and for man.
Clark further elucidates the point:
“Suppose the word mountain meant metaphor, and dog, and Bible, and the United States. Clearly, if a word meant everything, it would mean nothing. If, now, the law of contradiction is an arbitrary convention, and if our linguistic theorists choose some other convention, I challenge them to write a book in conformity with their principles. As a matter of fact it will not be hard for them to do so. Nothing more is necessary than to write the word metaphor sixty thousand times: Metaphor metaphor metaphor metaphor…. This means the dog ran up the mountain, for the word metaphor means dog, ran, and mountain. Unfortunately, the sentence “metaphor metaphor metaphor” also means, Next Christmas is Thanksgiving, for the word metaphor has these meanings as well.” (6)
What has been learned from Clark applies directly to Isaiah 45:5, where God declares, “besides Me, there is no God.” It may be affirmed without equivocation that there is only one God, not other gods ruling over other planets. One of God’s incommunicable attributes is omniscience. “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” (Psalms 147:5) Infinite here means limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. God knows everything.
Rejecting the claim that God speaks in the Scriptures using human language, employing logically structured sentences about Himself, leaves one in an epistemological swamp of futility.
Clark tightens the argument in the following two quotations:
“Does Logic deal with things, or is it a science of words? And the answer one gives to these questions has such far reaching implications that it controls every detail of the resulting system of philosophy.” (7)
“If God did not arrange [the world] this way, then there must be an independent factor in the universe. And if there is such, one consequence and perhaps two follow. First, the doctrine of creation must be abandoned. A Creation ex nihilo would be completely in God’s control. Independent forces cannot be created forces, and created forces cannot be independent.
Then, second, if the universe is not God’s creation, his knowledge of it–past and future–cannot depend on what he intends to do, but on his observation of how it works. In such a case, how could we be sure that God’s observations are accurate? How could we be sure that these independent forces will not later show an unsuspected twist that will falsify God’s predictions?
And, finally, on this view God’s knowledge would be empirical, rather than an integral part of his essence, and thus he would be a dependent knower. These objections are insurmountable. We can consistently believe in creation, omnipotence, omniscience, and the divine decree. But we cannot retain sanity and combine any one of these with free will.” (8)
The significance of Clark’s observations should now be apparent. The discussion continues with “Logic and Language” from “God and Logic” by Gordon H. Clark:
“This point brings us to the central issue of language. Language did not develop from, nor was its purpose restricted to, the physical needs of earthly life. God gave Adam a mind to understand the divine law, and he gave him language to enable him to speak to God. From the beginning, language was intended for worship. In the Te Deum, by means of language, and in spite of the fact that it is sung to music, we pay “metaphysical compliments” to God. The debate about the adequacy of language to express the truth of God is a false issue. Words are mere symbols or signs. Any sign would be adequate. The real issue is: Does a man have the idea to symbolize? If he can think of God, then he can use the sound God, Deus, Theos, or Elohim. The word makes no difference, and the sign is ipso facto literal and adequate.
The Christian view is that God created Adam as a rational mind. The structure of Adam’s mind was the same as God’s. God thinks that asserting the consequent is a fallacy; and Adam’s mind was formed on the principles of identity and contradiction. This Christian view of God, man, and language does not fit into any empirical philosophy. It is rather a type of a priori rationalism. Man’s mind is not initially a blank. It is structured. In fact, an unstructured blank is no mind at all. Nor could any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced from sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori.
This is not to say that all truth can be deduced from logic alone. The seventeenth-century rationalists gave themselves an impossible task. Even if the ontological argument be valid, it is impossible to deduce Cur Deus Homo, the Trinity, or the final resurrection. The axioms to which the a priori forms of logic must be applied are the propositions God revealed to Adam and the later prophets.” (9)
Gordon H. Clark’s essay on 1 and 2 Timothy:
“The inerrancy of Scripture, as Quenstedt so carefully detailed it, is of fundamental importance. Nowhere else can we learn of salvation. Nowhere else could we learn of justification by faith alone. Nowhere else is there any information about Jesus Christ. Whatever later Christian authors have written about the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, has its source in Scripture. If the Scripture is in error here and there, it is possible that it is in error here. Then too, from the standpoint of logic, there is a question the new so-called evangelicals are reluctant to answer. It is this: If the Bible contains falsehoods here and there, the theologian must have a criterion to distinguish the parts that are true from the parts that are false: What is the criterion? In a court of law, if the judge and jury detect a witness perjuring himself two or three times, or even once, they cannot accept any of the remainder of his testimony. If some things he says happen to be true, they must be proved by other witnesses. Therefore, attacks on the evangelical position are obliged to state the criterion they use in separating the truths of the Bible from its falsehoods. What is this criterion by which, from its superior position, it convicts the Scripture of error? Are the Assyrian inscriptions infallible in matters of history? Is Swedenborg an inerrant authority on Heaven and Hell? Bultmann at least had the consistency to say, “We do not know a single thing Jesus ever said or did.” (10)
Conclusion
The section on language and rational thought warrants repeated reading. Further research is encouraged. Either God has spoken reliably in Scripture or He has not. If He has not, skepticism is unavoidable. Listening to a pope or a prophet is no solution, because the same objections Clark raised apply equally to them.
Notes
1. John Gill, “Exposition of the Old and New Testaments”, Isaiah, 9 Volumes, John, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 710.
2. Charles John Ellicott, “Bible Commentary for English Readers”, Isaiah, Vol. IV (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 535.
3. John Calvin, “Calvin’s Commentaries”, Isaiah, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 401.
4. Gordon H. Clark, “The Incarnation”, (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation), p. 46-47.
5. Gordon Clark, “God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics”, (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation), p. 161-162.
6. Gordon H. Clark, “God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics” (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation), p. 49- 50.
7. Gordon H. Clark, “Thales to Dewey” (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation), p. 260.
8. Gordon Clark, From: “God and Evil” (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004), 25 26. Cited in Reymond, “What Is God?” 132 133.
9. Gordon H. Clark, “God and Logic”, Trinity Foundation.
10. Gordon H. Clark, Essay 1 and 2 Timothy, Trinity Foundation, March/April 1983.
Declaration
“For transparency, I note that I used Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining the manuscript’s clarity and grammar, as indicated in the article’s attribution. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
The Religion That Started in a Hat 