One of the more important trajectories in New Testament studies of the past twenty years has been the attempt to discover distinctly Jewish roots for Christianity’s high Christology-the belief that Jesus was God incarnate alongside the invisible God of Israel. It may seem shocking that anyone would consider any part of Judaism would support such an idea. After all, as the Shema declares, “the LORD our God is one.” Shock notwithstanding, ancient Judaism does indeed provide the background to the Christian idea of a godhead, mainly through a teaching that Judaism once considered acceptable but then declared a heresy around the second century C.E.: the belief that there were two (holy and good) powers in heaven. This blog is devoted to making that scholarly discussion accessible and to go beyond it in some important ways.
Just over thirty years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought: Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism
The Jewish category of a “second power in heaven” caught the attention of scholarly specialists in New Testament origins and Second Temple Jewish monotheism since the exaltation of a second power in heaven became the hallmark of Christianity. New Testament scholars were stimulated by the work of Segal and others who followed to search for an explanation for the exaltation of Jesus by a Jewish sect whose adherents were willing to suffer death rather than deny monotheism. How could the early Christians simultaneously affirm monotheism and worship a second power in heaven? If Christianity derived from Judaism, was the exaltation of a second power a departure from Israelite religion? Was there such a structure in Israelite religion and if so, from whence did it derive?
Segal could not answer the question of where Jews got the two powers idea from their own Bible, what we typically refer to as the Old Testament. He speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. I agreed in principle, but eventually found a more precise and coherent explanation. Tracing the two powers in heaven idea back into Israel’s most ancient religion was my own dissertation topic (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004; available as a PDF via the right sidebar of this blog). I argued that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the co-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. The two powers teaching was a surviving element in Common Era Judaism of the old pre-exilic divine council-and quite an explosive one given the issue of monotheism. I’ll be unpacking all this in this blog.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Hey Michael,
Looking forward to reading 3 of your blogs…
Mike in Sauquoit
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Looking forward to where you are going with all this…
May 5th, 2008 at 12:09 am
thanks to both of you!
May 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. The two powers teaching was a surviving element in Common Era Judaism of the old pre-exilic divine council”
Two questions: I thought the Jews always regarded Baal as a pagan deity, are you saying they incorporated him into their own theology or are you saying the Ugarites (?) had a belief in an “El” and an appointed god “Baal”?
Who did the rabbis think the coming Messiah was, if he wasn’t a ruling power in heaven? More plainly stated, who or what was the Messiah supposed to be if not a heavenly being?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Catherine: On your first question: Yes, Baal was a pagan deity, and seen as such (at least by orthodox Yahwists). But the Bible often (well, maybe a couple dozen places) takes Baal imagery, titles, or passages from the Baal Cycle of Ugarit, and applies them to Yahweh. The tactic in doing so is polemic. Baal was the storm god, for example, who rode the clouds. By calling Yahweh the one who rides the clouds, or by taking a passage from the Baal Cycle and “inserting” Yahweh (thus displacing Baal in those lines), the writer was saying, “no you dimwits, Yahweh is the one who brings rain / rides the clouds.” Doing this kind of thing was “diss-ing” the other deity. Yahweh also has titles and names of El (from Ugarit) applied to him in the Hebrew Bible. They were sort of “merged” into Him in the Israelites’ mind–there could be only one high sovereign who was superior to other gods.
The people of Ugarit believed El (their name - and the same as in the Hebrew Bible) was the sovereign of the pantheon. However, it is Baal who, as El’s co-regent, was called “most high” and “king of the gods” - and yet Baal has lesser authority. Essentially, Baal was El’s vizier. I don’t want to get ahead of myself by putting my material into comments, but I’m going to argue (this was part of my dissertation) that Israel had its own co-regent council structure where Yahweh was the sovereign (and both El and Baal imagery and titles were applied to him, as noted above). BUT (and here’s the cool part), there is a SECOND Yahweh figure in the Hebrew Scriptures — what I call the “visible Yahweh” — who was at times present with Yahweh — the invisible Yahweh (the “Father”). Israel’s version of a co-regent council was to have Yahweh in BOTH slots — the El slot and the Baal slot. The El slot = the invisible Yahweh; the Baal slot = the visible Yahweh. Thus there was a binitarian godhead. The second Yahweh “was but wasn’t” Yahweh — he at times appears alone, and at times with the invisible Yahweh. They are the same, yet distinct. Sound familiar?
Second question: The visible Yahweh figure I talked about above can be linked (rather easily) to the figure of the Messiah. You’ll have to wait for more on that.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Mr Heiser hello from Athens,Greece. I have read your book ”The Facade” and watched some of your lectures.I like and appreciate your work,the new ideas you have brought into theology and you are also a very likeable person. Although I do not believe in God anymore I think highly of your work and I love to read it for educational purposes.I recommend ”The facade” to my students (I teach English) and their responce is enthusiastic despite their personal beliefs.Not only is your novel captivating but it is also a wealth of scientific and cultural information and an urge for young students to do research.I will follow your future work on the site and as an author closely. Now my question is this. I have found this humble unassuming site(http://members.cox.net/marscydonia/index.shtml) that gives a certain depiction of the face on Mars quite different from that widely held to be correct. Owing to the strong possibility that Helel was serpentine and luminous in appearance I’d like to ask you to have a look and tell me what you think.Thanks for the opportunity to contact you.All the best wishes for you and your family and please carry on with your excellent work.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
benign man: Sorry to hear of your atheism - has me wondering what led to it. I appreciate your comments and use of The Facade. Maybe if I’m ever in Athens I can stop in and listen to your class! I will have a look at the website you mentioned here as well.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
benign man: I just looked at the website (you caught me with some time!). VERY interesting, though I have basically the same response as I’ve given to Richard (Hoagland): I can’t accept artificiality for this or any of the other “structures” on Mars until there is some sort of expedition there and there is real hard evidence. Thanks for the site!
June 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Mr. Heiser thank you very much for the time you took .I really appreciate it as well as your comments. I too agree with you that without solid evidence nothing can be accepted.I just found it quite intriguing ,something to bear in mind.
It would be a great honour to have you in my class as it would be to one day meet you in person and cherish your company. You are a man of serious science and integrity but also very kind.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
benign_man: Thanks! I will look you up if I’m ever in Athens. It would be fun.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
[...] the “two powers in heaven” “heresy” with Metatron being found in the place of God in heaven according to [...]