Argument

Two Powers in Heaven Argument

Intro

Rabbinic literature contains a named heresy called "two powers in heaven." It is condemned repeatedly, in the Mekhilta, in Sanhedrin, in Hagigah. Someone was saying there were two divine powers, and the rabbis needed to stop them.

The obvious guess is that the target was Christians. It is a reasonable guess and it is not what the sources show.

The people the passages name are insiders.

Rabbi Akiva, the most authoritative sage of his generation, looks at Daniel 7:9, which says "thrones were cast down" in the plural, and proposes that one throne is for God and one is for David. Rabbi Yose rebukes him: how long will you profane the Shekhinah? The second throne, he says, is for justice (b. Sanhedrin 38b).

Elisha ben Abuyah, a tannaitic sage, ascends and sees the angel Metatron seated in heaven, writing. Only God sits. He concludes: "perhaps there are two powers in heaven." The narrative then has Metatron given lashes of fire, to demonstrate that he is a servant who could have stood and did not (b. Hagigah 15a).

3 Enoch, a Jewish mystical text, calls Metatron the YHWH ha-katan, the lesser YHWH.

And the Targumim, the Aramaic versions read aloud in synagogue, routinely have God act through his Memra, his Word, in passages where the Hebrew simply has God acting.

Alan Segal's Two Powers in Heaven (Brill, 1977) established what all this means historically: the rabbinic condemnations describe a position that existed, that was held by Jews reading Jewish Scripture, and that had to be ruled out. You do not legislate against a reading nobody is making.

That is the whole argument. Not that Judaism taught the Trinity. It did not. But that when a Jewish interlocutor says a second divine figure is unthinkable within Judaism, his own tradition had to work quite hard to make it so.

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

Cheatsheet

The 30-second reply:

There is a heresy in rabbinic literature called "two powers in heaven," and it is condemned in the Mekhilta, in Sanhedrin 38b, and in Hagigah 15a. Look at who is named. Sanhedrin 38b has Rabbi Akiva proposing that the plural thrones of Daniel 7:9 are one for God and one for David, and being rebuked for it. Hagigah 15a has Elisha ben Abuyah seeing Metatron seated and concluding there are two powers. 3 Enoch calls Metatron the lesser YHWH. The Targums have God acting through his Memra, his Word. These are Jews, reading Jewish Scripture, inside Jewish institutions. The rabbis were not banning something Christians were saying. They were closing a door that was open inside their own house.

The 5 fast facts:

1. b. Sanhedrin 38b: Akiva and the thrones of Daniel 7:9. Rebuked by Rabbi Yose, and the proposal is his.
2. b. Hagigah 15a: Elisha ben Abuyah and the seated Metatron. "Perhaps there are two powers in heaven."
3. 3 Enoch calls Metatron the "lesser YHWH." A Jewish mystical text, not a Christian one.
4. Targum Onkelos routinely substitutes the Memra of the LORD where the Hebrew has God acting, alongside Shekhinah and Yekara.
5. Philo calls the Logos a "second God" and a mediator, in a first-century Jewish work written for Jews (De Somniis 1.227-230; Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 205-206).

The 3 strongest counter-moves:

• "Why did the rabbis need a category called 'two powers in heaven'?" Prohibitions are evidence of what was being done.
• "Who proposed that one of the thrones in Daniel 7:9 was for David?" Akiva. Let the name land.
• "What does 3 Enoch call Metatron?" The lesser YHWH.

Concessions to make freely:

• The rabbis ruled it out, decisively and permanently. This is not a case of Judaism being ambivalent today. The verdict was reached and it has held.
• Two powers is not the Trinity. A second divine figure is binitarian at most, and none of these sources articulates three persons in one essence.
• Segal's descriptive result is accepted; Boyarin's stronger thesis is contested. Segal shows the rabbinic reports describe a live position. Boyarin argues the binitarian reading was mainstream until the boundary was drawn, and that is a genuinely disputed claim which should be cited as argued rather than as consensus.
• The Memra is standardly explained as a reverence device to avoid crude anthropomorphism, and that explanation is partly right. Whether the Targumists intended a distinct hypostasis is disputed and should not be asserted.
• Metatron in the Hagigah narrative is corrected. He is flogged precisely to establish that he is a servant, and the story's purpose is to close the reading, not to endorse it.
• Philo is a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher whose Logos is shaped by Middle Platonism, and his influence on rabbinic Judaism was negligible. He shows what a first-century Jew could write; he does not show what Palestinian Judaism held.
• The dating of 3 Enoch is late and disputed, with proposals spanning several centuries.

What NOT to defend:

• Do not claim Judaism taught the Trinity. It did not, and the claim is indefensible.
• Do not claim Metatron is Jesus. This appears in popular apologetics and it is nonsense.
• Do not present Boyarin as the consensus of the field.
• Do not use the material as a "gotcha." It is history, and it is most persuasive delivered as history.
• Do not overstate 3 Enoch's antiquity.

The closing line:

"Your tradition had a name for this. It called it two powers in heaven and it forbade it, and it forbade it because Akiva said the second throne in Daniel was for someone, and because Elisha ben Abuyah saw someone seated who should have been standing. Those are not Christians. Those are your sages, reading your book. I am not saying Judaism taught what I believe. I am saying that when you tell me a second divine figure is unthinkable in Judaism, your own literature records the thought, names the people who had it, and shows the work it took to close it down."

In full

Thesis: A second divine figure alongside the God of Israel was a live and respectable reading within Second Temple and early rabbinic Judaism, attested by the rabbinic polemic against "two powers in heaven," by the figures the polemic names, by the Targumic and mystical vocabulary of divine agency, and by Second Temple texts. The Christian claim about the Son therefore engages a question Judaism itself confronted rather than importing an alien framework.

The argument's conclusion is bounded. It does not establish the Trinity, does not claim Judaism taught it, and does not treat the rabbinic condemnation as mistaken on its own terms. It establishes that the conceptual room existed, that Jews occupied it, and that the boundary excluding it was drawn in the second century and after, in the period when Christianity was making the same texts its own.

The case rests on five lines of evidence.

1. The rabbinic polemic itself. The phrase shtei rashuyot ba-shamayim, "two powers in heaven," is a recognized heretical category in rabbinic literature. It appears in the Mekhilta on Exodus 20:2, where the giving of the law is expounded in a way designed to exclude the inference, and in the Sifre and elsewhere. Alan Segal's Two Powers in Heaven (Brill, 1977) collected and analyzed the reports, and his central descriptive result is broadly accepted: the polemic addresses a real position rather than a hypothetical one, and its earliest layers appear to target Jewish rather than Gnostic or Christian opponents.

2. The named insiders.

   • b. Sanhedrin 38b. Daniel 7:9 says "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit." The plural prompts discussion. Rabbi Akiva proposes that one throne is for God and one for David. Rabbi Yose rebukes him: "Akiva, how long will you profane the Shekhinah?" and offers instead that the second is for justice. The passage records the most authoritative sage of the tannaitic period reading a second enthroned figure out of Daniel 7 and being corrected.
   • b. Hagigah 15a. Elisha ben Abuyah, one of the four who entered the orchard, sees Metatron seated and writing the merits of Israel. Since the tradition held that no one sits in heaven, he concludes: "perhaps there are two powers in heaven." The narrative resolves the problem by having Metatron given sixty lashes of fire, so that it would be established that he could have stood and did not, that is, that he is a servant. The story is boundary maintenance, and it presupposes the availability of the conclusion it corrects.
   • 3 Enoch (Sefer Hekhalot) calls Metatron YHWH ha-katan, the lesser YHWH, and describes him enthroned and bearing the divine Name. The work's date is disputed and late, and it should be cited with that caveat, but it is a Jewish mystical text and its designation is extraordinary in any tradition insisting on absolute divine simplicity.

3. The Targumic vocabulary of divine agency. Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan routinely render divine action as the action of the Memra, the Word, of the LORD. Where the Hebrew says God created, spoke, saved, or was with someone, the Targum frequently says the Memra of the LORD did so. Alongside the Memra stand the Shekhinah, the dwelling presence, and the Yekara, the glory. The standard explanation is that these are reverence devices avoiding crude anthropomorphism, and that explanation is partly right and should be granted. What is also true is that they create a Jewish idiom in which God's Word is spoken of as acting, as distinguishable from God, and as being God's own, which is precisely the conceptual room the Christian claim occupies.

4. Second Temple divine-agent and heavenly-redeemer figures.

   • Daniel 7:13-14. One like a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven, approaches the Ancient of Days, and receives everlasting dominion, with all peoples rendering him pelach, the Aramaic verb Daniel elsewhere uses of religious service to deity (3:12, 3:17-18, 6:16). Coming with the clouds is divine transport elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1).
   • The Similitudes of 1 Enoch (chapters 37 to 71) develop the Son of Man into a pre-existent heavenly figure who sits on the throne of glory and judges.
   • 4 Ezra 13 presents a man rising from the sea, flying with the clouds, and destroying the nations with the breath of his mouth.
   • 11QMelchizedek from Qumran presents Melchizedek as a heavenly deliverer who executes divine judgment, applying to him language the Hebrew Bible uses of God, including Psalm 82:1.
   • 4Q246, the "Son of God" text from Qumran, describes a figure called "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High" whose kingdom is everlasting.
   • Philo describes the Logos as a "second God" and as mediator between God and creation (De Somniis 1.227-230; Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 205-206). Philo is a Hellenistic Jew shaped by Middle Platonism whose influence on rabbinic Judaism was slight, and that qualification should accompany every citation of him. What he demonstrates is what a first-century Jew committed to monotheism could write.

5. The chronology of the boundary. The rabbinic condemnation of two powers appears in tannaitic and amoraic material, that is, in the second century and after. Segal argued that the boundary hardened in exactly the period when Christianity was claiming these texts, and Daniel Boyarin has pressed the point further, arguing in Border Lines (Penn, 2004) and The Jewish Gospels (New Press, 2012) that the binitarian reading and the divine Son of Man were within Judaism until the rabbis expelled them. Boyarin's stronger thesis is contested and should be cited as an argued position. The weaker claim, which is all the argument requires, is that a position ruled out of Judaism in the second century was inside Judaism before it.

What the argument does not establish, stated plainly: it does not establish the Trinity, which is a claim about three persons and one essence that none of these sources approaches. It does not show that Judaism was binitarian in any majority sense. It does not show that the rabbis were wrong by their own lights. It shows that the categories the objection calls impossible were Jewish categories, occupied by Jews, and closed by a decision.

Argument structure

Master objections to the whole argument

MO1: "You are citing a Jewish repudiation of an idea as evidence for the idea. The rabbis condemned two powers. That is the headline, and everything else is spin."

• Three responses. (a) The condemnation is real, permanent, and not disputed here. (b) The evidential value lies in the target, not the verdict. Legal and polemical prohibitions are historical evidence of the behavior they prohibit, and this is standard historical reasoning applied to any tradition. (c) The named figures settle who was doing it. Akiva and Elisha ben Abuyah are not outside opponents. A tradition does not have to rebuke its greatest sage for a reading that only its enemies hold.

MO2: "Segal's book is titled Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. His own subtitle says the target is Christians and Gnostics. You have inverted his thesis."

• Three responses. (a) The subtitle is accurate and the objection is a fair catch. Segal's study covers the reports about Christian and Gnostic opponents extensively. (b) His analysis distinguishes layers, and one of his significant results is that the earliest material appears to address a position that cannot be reduced to Christianity or Gnosticism, arising from exegesis of Hebrew Bible texts such as Daniel 7:9, Exodus 24, and the plural-agent passages. (c) The named insiders are independent of Segal's framing. Whatever the polemic's later targets, Sanhedrin 38b has Akiva making the proposal and Hagigah 15a has Elisha ben Abuyah drawing the conclusion, and neither is a Christian or a Gnostic.

MO3: "Metatron is a created angel. That is the whole point of the Hagigah story: he is flogged to prove he is a servant. You are citing a text that refutes you."

• Three responses. (a) Correct, and it is stated in the concessions. The narrative exists to close the reading. (b) The flogging is the evidence. A tradition with no room for a second divine power does not need a scene in which the candidate is publicly demoted, and the demotion is directed at a conclusion a named sage had drawn. (c) 3 Enoch shows how far the room extended before it closed. Calling any figure YHWH ha-katan, the lesser YHWH, is not something a tradition does casually, and the designation exists in a Jewish text.

MO4: "Philo is irrelevant. He is a Hellenistic Alexandrian whose Logos is Platonic philosophy, he had no influence on rabbinic Judaism, and his works survived only because Christians copied them."

• Three responses. (a) Every part of this is true and it is conceded in the concessions. (b) He is cited for a narrow purpose. He demonstrates that a first-century Jew, committed to monotheism and to the Torah, could describe a mediating Logos as a "second God" without regarding himself as having left Judaism. That is a datum about the range of first-century Jewish thought. (c) The argument does not depend on him. Strike Philo entirely and premises 1, 2, 3, and 5 stand.

MO5: "Even granting all of it, two powers is not three persons in one essence. You have shown a Jewish precedent for binitarianism at best, and Christianity is not binitarian."

• Three responses. (a) Entirely correct and conceded in the concessions. No source here approaches the Nicene formulation. (b) The argument's conclusion is stated to match. It claims conceptual room for a second divine figure, not a Jewish anticipation of the Trinity. (c) The objection under answer is about possibility, not about detail. The claim being defeated is that a divine figure alongside the God of Israel is unthinkable within Judaism. Showing that Jews thought it answers that claim; the further specification of the doctrine is a separate argument at Trinity.

MO6: "Boyarin is a provocateur whose thesis is not accepted, and citing him alongside Segal makes it look as though the field agrees. It does not."

• Two responses. (a) Granted, and this page distinguishes them explicitly. Segal's descriptive result on the rabbinic reports is broadly accepted; Boyarin's stronger claim about mainstream Judaism is contested and is cited as an argued position rather than as consensus. (b) The argument is built on the weaker claim. Nothing in the five premises requires Boyarin to be right.

Premise 1, the prohibition implies the practice

Affirmative case

1. The category is named and recurrent. Shtei rashuyot ba-shamayim appears across the tannaitic and amoraic corpora as a designation for a specific error.
2. The Mekhilta on Exodus 20:2 shapes its exposition to exclude it. The commentary on "I am the LORD thy God" is developed in a way that forestalls the inference of a second power.
3. Segal's study established the category's historical reference. Two Powers in Heaven (Brill, 1977) remains the foundational treatment.
4. Legislating against a reading is evidence that it was being made. This is ordinary historical inference and it is applied to Christian conciliar condemnations in exactly the same way.

Anticipated objections

1. "Traditions guard against errors that are merely possible, not only against errors that are actual."
2. "The target may have been Gnostic dualism, which posited a second god, and has nothing to do with Christianity."
3. "A polemical category can be constructed retrospectively to organize a range of opponents."

Rebuttals

1. Sometimes, and the specificity here tells against it. A merely possible error does not usually require rebuking a sage of Akiva's stature by name, nor a narrative in which a named angel is flogged. The material reads as correction rather than as prophylaxis.
2. Gnostic dualism is among the later targets, as Segal documents, and it does not fit the named cases. Neither Akiva nor Elisha ben Abuyah is proposing an evil demiurge alongside a good God; both are reading a second exalted figure out of Israel's own texts.
3. Possible, and it would not remove the named incidents, which are attributed to identifiable figures and attached to specific verses.

Premise 2, the named insiders

Affirmative case

1. b. Sanhedrin 38b, Akiva and Daniel 7:9. The plural "thrones" is the textual trigger, and the proposal that one is for David comes from Akiva. Rabbi Yose's rebuke, "how long will you profane the Shekhinah," is the correction.
2. The rebuke's severity is itself evidence. One does not accuse a colleague of profaning the divine presence over a trivial suggestion.
3. b. Hagigah 15a, Elisha ben Abuyah and Metatron. The premise of the story is that only God sits in heaven, which is why a seated figure generates the conclusion.
4. Elisha ben Abuyah is a tannaitic sage, not an outsider, and the tradition's treatment of him as Acher, "the Other," registers the seriousness of his defection.
5. 3 Enoch's YHWH ha-katan, applied to Metatron, is the outer limit of how far the room extended.

Anticipated objections

1. "Akiva's proposal is about David the king, an exalted human, not a divine figure. You are inflating it."
2. "Elisha ben Abuyah became a heretic. Using him as evidence of what Judaism could think is like citing an apostate as evidence about a church."
3. "3 Enoch is a late mystical text with no normative standing and a disputed date."

Rebuttals

1. The identification of the second occupant is contested and the enthronement is not. What Akiva proposes is a second throne in the heavenly court beside the Ancient of Days, and Rabbi Yose's response, that the second is for justice rather than for any person, indicates that the objection was to an occupant at all. The charge of profaning the Shekhinah is not the language one uses about an honorific for a dead king.
2. His defection is the point rather than a problem with it. The story explains how a sage came to a conclusion the tradition then had to close, and the mechanism it describes, seeing an exalted figure enthroned, is an exegetical and visionary one available inside Judaism.
3. The date is late and disputed, and the caveat is given in the concessions. The designation is cited for what it shows about the vocabulary the tradition could produce, and the premise stands without it on Sanhedrin 38b and Hagigah 15a.

Premise 4, the Second Temple figures

Affirmative case

1. Daniel 7:13-14. Arrival with the clouds, approach to the Ancient of Days, everlasting dominion, and pelach rendered by all peoples.
2. The verb's usage in Daniel is of religious service: refused to the golden image at 3:12 and 3:17-18, given to God at 6:16 and 6:20.
3. The Similitudes of 1 Enoch 37 to 71 present the Son of Man as pre-existent, seated on the throne of glory, and judging.
4. 4 Ezra 13 has a man from the sea flying with the clouds and destroying the nations with the breath of his mouth.
5. 11QMelchizedek applies to Melchizedek language the Hebrew Bible uses of God, including Psalm 82:1, in a heavenly-deliverer role.
6. 4Q246 describes a figure called "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High" with an everlasting kingdom.

Anticipated objections

1. "Daniel 7:27 interprets the figure corporately as 'the saints of the most High.' The chapter answers its own question."
2. "The Similitudes are of uncertain date and may be post-Christian. They are absent from the Qumran Enoch material."
3. "4Q246's figure may be a boastful king or an antichrist figure, and the fragment is ambiguous."

Rebuttals

1. The corporate application is in the text and must be granted. It stands alongside rather than instead of the individual figure of verse 13, in the way a king's victory is his people's victory. And the reception history is decisive for the premise's purpose: Jewish readers before Christianity, in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, took the figure individually.
2. The dating is genuinely disputed and the absence from Qumran is a real datum. Most current scholarship places the Similitudes in the late first century BC or the first century AD, which keeps them within range, but the premise should be stated with the caveat.
3. Fair, and the fragment's interpretation is contested. It is cited as part of a cumulative survey rather than as a decisive text, and the survey does not depend on it.

Live-cite kit

Jewish sources

• Mekhilta on Exodus 20:2, the two-powers exposition.
• b. Sanhedrin 38b, Akiva and the thrones of Daniel 7:9.
• b. Hagigah 15a, Elisha ben Abuyah and the seated Metatron.
• 3 Enoch, Metatron as YHWH ha-katan, with the dating caveat.
• Targum Onkelos, the Memra of the LORD; Shekhinah and Yekara.

Second Temple sources

• Daniel 7:9, 7:13-14; the usage of pelach at Daniel 3:12, 3:17-18, 6:16.
• 1 Enoch 37 to 71, the Similitudes, with the dating caveat.
• 4 Ezra 13; 11QMelchizedek; 4Q246.
• Philo, De Somniis 1.227-230; Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 205-206, with the Hellenistic caveat.

Scholarly

• Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Brill, 1977), the foundational study.
• Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines (Penn, 2004) and The Jewish Gospels (New Press, 2012), as an argued position.
• Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord (Fortress, 1988) and Lord Jesus Christ (Eerdmans, 2003).
• Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Eerdmans, 2008).

Aphorism

• "You do not ban a reading nobody is making."
• "Akiva said it. Not a Christian."
• "The door was open. Your tradition closed it, and I am asking when."

Tactical notes

• Lead with the question, not the answer. "Are you familiar with the two powers heresy?" is the opening. If the answer is yes, the conversation is already better than most.
• Get the names on the table early. The entire persuasive force is that the sources name Akiva and Elisha ben Abuyah rather than Christians.
• State the limit before the evidence. "This does not get me to the Trinity, and I am not going to pretend it does."
• Concede the flogging. Volunteering that the Hagigah narrative exists to close the reading is what makes the citation credible.
• Separate Segal from Boyarin out loud. Presenting a contested thesis as consensus is the fastest way to lose a well-read interlocutor.
• Drop Philo if challenged. He is the weakest item and defending him costs more than he contributes.
• Pair this with the Shema defeater, not with the incarnation argument. Its natural place is immediately after the echad and yachid discussion, as the historical half of that case.
• What NOT to defend: that Judaism taught the Trinity; that Metatron is Jesus; Boyarin as consensus; an early date for 3 Enoch.

See also

• Two Powers in Heaven, the concept hub with the fuller treatment.
• Trinity Violates the Shema Objection Defeater, the defeater this argument supports.
• Christianity Is Idolatry Objection Defeater, where the same textual precedents bear on the avodah zarah charge.
• God Is Not a Man Objection Defeater, the companion objection on divine appearance.
• Rabbinic Sources Attest a Suffering Messiah Argument, the parallel argument from internal Jewish sources.
• Trinity, Monotheism, and Angel of the LORD, the doctrines and figures in view.
• Old Testament Witness to the Deity of Christ, the wider textual case.
• Dead Sea Scrolls, the Qumran material behind premise 4.
• The Jewish Defense, Judaism, and Counter-Missionary Movement, the cluster hubs.