Two Powers in Heaven

This study of the rabbinic heretics who believed in “two powers in heaven” began as a dissertation at Yale.

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

Consider this a postscript to my study of Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (posts can be found in the Bibliography tab). Segal’s study is well over 300 pages, and I do not intend to go into meaningful detail. I am focused on three aspects, to be covered in three posts.

· First (the topic of this post): what is meant by “two powers in heaven”?

· Second: when did this concept come into view? Was it only after Jesus Christ’s appearance on earth, or did it pre-date this?

· Third: when did rabbinical arguments against this doctrine develop?

Segal presents the case as to why this idea was/is a heresy, but I will not spend time examining this. My starting point is Christianity, and it is already clear that Christianity is heretical to Judaism.

What is Meant by “Two Powers in Heaven?” Two Powers referred to any kind of dualism, but within the Christian world, these two powers were complimentary and not opposing or antagonistic deities (yes, I know it is one deity, but language fails me in this discussion). I will focus only on this strand, as it is all that is relevant to me.

“Powers” is a concise way to understand a Hebrew word of deeper meaning. Consider it to include the ideas of the right of possession to something, the authority of commission, the right or the freedom to do something, as heirs and descendants at law.

With this detail, we can find the concepts of equal in rights, equal in authority, and also a relationship of Father and Son. Of course, to the rabbis who objected to this “heresy,” it meant two authorities – two equal persons of God or two equal “Gods,” if you will.

G. F. Moore dealt with the problem of “two powers in heaven” briefly and in philosophical rather than historical terms in his discussion of the Jewish concept of God. He showed that the rabbis basically criticized these heretics for compromising the monotheistic center of Judaism.

This is the basic concern…

But he also reasoned that the designation of “two powers” could not refer to polytheism, for polytheism would hardly have been a danger within the Jewish community.

This, it seems to me, is a very critical point: By “Two Powers,” it was not polytheism that was in view. This heresy of polytheism was of no risk to orthodox Jews. instead, this idea of two powers confused monotheism, but it was not a matter of two “Gods.” Moore’s point is that this idea of two powers very much fits into how Christology and the Trinity would come into view within Christian theological understanding – one God, more than one person.

In fact, there are accounts of “two powers” heretics who thought that the second power was God’s partner in creation.

In a sense, this is quite Christian – no, not a partner, but instead a second person (power) of the One True God.

[Philo’s] use of the term logos points to Jewish familiarity with Hellenistic philosophical schools. … Hence any Jew who shared Philo’s ideas of the nature of divinity could be a prime candidate for the charge of “two powers in heaven.”

Not that this is necessarily what Philo was getting at (and I have not examined Philo’s views on this in any detail).

Conclusion

So much for what is meant by “two powers in heaven.” Next will come some understanding of the history of doctrinal development.