Two Powers in Heaven – Doctrinal Development

Though it was difficult to date the rabbinic traditions accurately in many cases, the results showed that the earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven while only later could heretics be shown to believe in two opposing powers in heaven.

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (PDF), by Alan F. Segal

Christians believing the former version, Gnostics the latter. There were Jews prior to the Christian Jews who ascribed to such a notion of two powers. To ascribe the beginnings of the idea of “two powers in heaven” to the development of Christianity within Judaism is to set it too late in time.

Genesis 1: 26(a) 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness

The idea that “two powers” originated here is dismissed by Segal, as shortly thereafter, God is referred to by the singular “He.” I don’t automatically dismiss it this way, as the alternating plural and singular can just as easily be explained by two (or more) powers in heaven which are, in fact, one God.

Genesis 19: 23 The sun had risen upon the earth when Lot entered Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

Justin Martyr would use this passage to prove that Christ operates as the agent of punishment against Sodom because He is God’s messenger in the world of men.

This is remarkably firm proof that even orthodox Christians were seen as “two powers” heretics.

Of course they were and would continue to be.

Then, this passage in Daniel:

Daniel 7: 9(a) “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool.

13 “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.

This passage in Daniel is referred to numerous times by Segal. As recalled from Boyarin’s book, this passage was very important regarding this idea of two powers in heaven.

Segal dismisses this passage as being a sound basis for two powers (albeit, as mentioned, he comes back to it often because, it seems, it is very problematic if one is after demonstrating heresy) as follows:

In Dan. 7:10 scripture states that “a fiery stream... came forth from Him” where the singular pronoun shows that only one personage is present, although there may be two manifestations.

Here again, such language can be understood in a Christian framework – one being, two persons (or two manifestations). Hence, I do not dismiss this passage easily. But, as mentioned, neither does Segal:

Dan. 7:9 f can certainly be seen to allow for a “two powers” interpretation.

It is certainly plausible that Jesus understood it this way:

When Jesus was arrested and brought before the High Priest, he is asked if he claims to be the messiah. Jesus answered, “I am and you shall see ‘the son of man’ sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mk. 14:62). According to this version of the story of Jesus’ trial, he may have associated himself with the “son of man” in Daniel 7:9 f. The reaction of the High Priest was to rend his garments and accuse Jesus of blasphemy.

Blasphemy. Not revolution, not breaking the Sabbath laws.

A further example is offered in John:

John 12: 44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

Regarding this passage, Segal writes:

The purpose of this passage is to identify Jesus as both messiah and as the “glory of God.” It does so by identifying the Christ as the glory of God which Isaiah saw in Is. 6. Isaiah’s prophecies of woe on Israel can then be transferred by the gospel writer to the Jews who did not perceive Jesus as God’s glory. To make the matter clear Jesus even cries aloud that in viewing him, men also view the Father.

The apostle Paul would write:

Ephesians 1:21 [Christ is] far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

A powerful passage, as Segal sees it:

Many “two powers” themes have come together. Jesus is raised from the dead and enthroned as Christ far above the status of any man or angel. He is sovereign in this age and the age to come, a claim explicitly reserved for God according to rabbinic tradition. Furthermore, Christ has been exalted beyond any title that can be named, implying that he has been awarded the secret name of God.

I recall conversations with others who either hold a unitarian view of God or wonder why Jesus just didn’t come out and say “I am God.” Well, maybe He did not say it in words of the twenty-first century, but the leaders of the Jewish community at the time understood that this is precisely what He was saying. Hence…blasphemy.

There is also non-Biblical, extra-rabbinical evidence of two powers.

The first significant extra-rabbinic evidence of “two powers” traditions is from Philo. He actually uses the term “two Gods” which was a synonym for “two powers” in rabbinic thought.

Not that he approved of or agreed with this concept – at least not in the “two Gods” form. I have previously written of the evidence taken from the book of Enoch as well.

…it is a mistake to assume that Christianity was a unified social movement which contained a consistent, theological perspective, even in its earliest stages. The most we can say is that some kinds of Christianity found “two powers” traditions favorable to their perspective.

This struggle with “theological perspective” continued for a few centuries, until the early Church councils were able to put into words the faith they received.

It is likely that the “two powers” sects were among the heretical groups excluded from the synagogue during earliest times, but it is not easy to characterize or date the entire battle.

Segal notes that this two powers “heresy” existed only in Palestine, and not in Babylon (oh, the rich symbolism that can be drawn from this!). In any case, one might conclude that God was preparing Jews in Palestine for what would be delivered in Palestine – the Son of God, the Messiah.

…when Irenaeus defends Christianity against the Marcionite gnostics, he himself uses “two powers” traditions.

Two complementary powers… Tertullian would also make similar “two powers” arguments.

Conclusion

It became clear that “two powers in heaven” was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus, if Philo is a trustworthy witness, and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity. It was one of the central issues over which the two religions separated.

Much earlier than Philo, given how some understood the Old Testament testimony. This corresponds with Boyarin’s work, that this idea of two powers in heaven pre-dated Jesus. It was an idea already existent among some subset – not a majority, but a not insignificant subset – of Jews at the time.