@firedragon I was writing about the development of 'Trinitarian monotheism' on a different thread today. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to 're-quote' it here (as it relates to your OP). Here is my original post in three parts:
If this is a reference to the later Nicene Trinitarian conception of God as three hypostases but with one essence and being, that doctrine as later articulated isn't found in the corpus of Paul's letters and it has no obvious precedent in pre-Christian Judaism. It arises from later systematization of the 'deification' of Christ (which
is very much a feature of the New Testamant texts) using the philosophical language of ontology.
Already, in his letters we
do, however, find Paul attesting to a mutation of traditional Jewish theology which led him - in tandem with all the other NT authors - to incorporate Jesus into the
shema as a "second power" in heaven pre-existing from eternity with the God of Israel as his Wisdom and agent of creation.
Consider:
Binitarianism - Wikipedia
Larry W. Hurtado of University of Edinburgh uses the word "binitarian" to describe the position of early Christian devotion to God, which ascribes to the Son (Jesus) an exaltedness that in Judaism would be reserved for God alone, while still affirming as in Judaism that God is one and is alone to be worshiped. He writes:
...there are a fairly consistent linkage and subordination of Jesus to God 'the Father' in these circles, evident even in the Christian texts from the latter decades of the 1st century that are commonly regarded as a very 'high' Christology, such as the Gospel of John and Revelation. This is why I referred to this Jesus-devotion as a 'binitarian' form of monotheism: there are two distinguishable figures (God and Jesus), but they are posited in a relation to each other that seems intended to avoid the ditheism of two gods.[1]
Hurtado does not describe binitarianism as antithetical to Nicene Christianity but rather as an indication that early Christians (before Nicaea) were monotheistic (as evidenced by their singular reference to the Father as God) yet also devoted to Jesus as pre-existent, co-eternal, the creator, embodying the power of God, by whom the Father is revealed, and in whose name alone the Father is worshiped. He writes, "The central place given to Jesus ... and ... their concern to avoid ditheism by reverencing Jesus rather consistently with reference to 'the Father', combine to shape the proto-orthodox 'binitarian' pattern of devotion. Jesus truly is reverenced as divine."[1]:618
Hurtado's view might be interpreted as urging that, at this stage in the development of the Church's understanding, it could be said that God is a person (the Father) and one being; and that Jesus is distinct from the Father, was pre-existent with God, and also originating from God without becoming a being separate from him, so that he is God (the Son). This view of a binitarian pattern of devotion would posit a unity of God's being and a oneness of the object of worship, which is sympathetic to its predecessor view in Judaism; and it also displays a plurality of simultaneous identities, which is sympathetic to its successor in trinitarianism. It is a development in understanding of Christ, in other words, from which arose several subsequent ones in the further course of development that eventually came into conflict with one another.
Scholars term this theological conception "
binatarianism", with the Holy Spirit at this stage of doctrinal development being a much less articulated concept - more of a divine force or power (not terribly dissimilar to traditional Jewish understanding of the Spirit of God), as opposed to a
hypostasis.
However, this 'binatarian' conception of monotheism (unlike later Nicene Trinitarianism with its ontological categories of
hypostases and
ousia) was a Jewish 'heresy' that manifested itself in groups within Second Temple and early post-Second Temple Judaism outside of the context of early Christianity, as one can clearly infer from the Babylonian Talmud's not infrequent condemnations of this "
two powers heresy".
Consider
Hagigah 14a in the
Bavli in which the Rabbis discuss the proper exegesis of
Daniel 7:9:
One verse says: His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool (Dan. 7:9), and (elsewhere) it is written: His locks are curled and black as a raven! (Cant. 5:11)—There is no contradiction: one (verse refers to) (the court) in session, and the other (verse refers to) war. For the Master said: In (court) session none is more fitting than an old man, and in war none is more fitting than a young man.
One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9); and another passage says: [I watched] until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat! (Dan 7:9)—There is no contradiction: one (throne) for him [the Ancient of Days], and one (throne) for David: For it has been taught (in a baraita): one was for him, and the other was for David—these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva.
Said Rabbi Yose the Galilean to him: Aqiva, how long will you treat the Shekhinah as profane! Rather, one (throne) was for justice (din) and one (throne) was for mercy (tzedaqah)
Said Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah to him: Aqiva, what have you to do with the Haggadah? Cease your talk (about the Haggadah), and turn to (the laws concerning) Nega‘im and Ohalot!
And likewise in
Hagiga 15a:
Aher chopped down the shoots’: Of him the verse says, “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). What does this mean? He saw that Metatron had been given permission [תושר] to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no conflict, no “back,” and no tiredness! Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers [יתשתויושר]!
In the first story, Rabbi Akiva interprets the '
ancient of days' and the '
one like a son of man' in the Book of Daniel as two distinct heavenly powers, both a kind of manifestation of God and one of the exalted figures (the one like "the son of man") being 'David', that is the Davidic Messiah.
Akiva is then immediately corrected by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar who upbraid him for an erroneous exegesis of the passage involving the 'thrones' in Daniel's heavenly vision, explaining that two divine powers are
not implied by the passage.
In the second story, the Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah has an ecstatic, mystical vision of the divine 'merkabah' or throne which he comes back from a 'heretic': namely, he comes to the conclusion that the angel Metatron might be one of 'two powers' in heaven alongside the God of Israel. Again, the Rabbis condemn him for lapsing into this binatarian heresy but unlike Rabbi Akiva, ben Abuyah remains in heresy.
We can see this same idea reiterated in the later
merkabah literature, such as in the Book of 3 Enoch where the same story of 'Aher's' vision of "two divine powers" is given lengthier treatment:
Rabbi Ishmael said to me: The angel Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, the glory of highest heaven, said to me:
At first I was sitting on a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights, the familia of the Omnipresent, on the authority of the Holy One, blessed be he...
But when Aher came to behold the vision of the Merkabah and set eyes on me, he was afraid and trembled before me...
Then he opened his mouth and said: “There are indeed two powers in heaven!”
(continued....)
