Divine Complexity: A Historical Challenge to Oneness Theology

 

Introduction

The Christian doctrine of God’s unity has long inspired both profound revelation and heated debate. While oneness theology insists on a singular, undifferentiated divine manifestation, early Christian controversies over Modalism, later labeled Sabellianism, reveal a more nuanced engagement with the nature of divine personhood. In recent decades, scholar Michael Heiser’s work on the Two Powers in Heaven has underscored an important dimension of Second Temple Jewish thought—a binitarian portrayal of the one God, wherein two distinct manifestations were acknowledged without compromising monotheism. This article explores how these historical and theological reflections offer a rigorous critique of oneness theology.

The Origins of Modalism and Sabellianism

In the first few centuries after Christ, Church leaders struggled to articulate how the one God revealed in Scripture could be confessed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Modalism emerged as an attempt to safeguard absolute unity by asserting that God appeared in different “modes” or manifestations rather than as distinct, eternal persons. Early proponents, later labeled Sabellians after the priest Sabellius, contended that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were successive expressions of one impersonal divine reality. This interpretation, however, came under scrutiny because it failed to accommodate the interpersonal dialogue and mutual indwelling observed in texts such as the baptism of Jesus, where the distinct voices of Father and Son suggest relational, not merely sequential, dynamics. (1, 2, 3)

By denying the enduring distinction within the Godhead, modalistic interpretations reduce the richness of divine relationality to mere functions or roles. Early Christian critics, notably Tertullian in Against Praxeas, argued that a proper theology of God must sustain both oneness and distinction—a tension that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity sought to resolve by affirming a God who is “one in essence and three in persons.” 

The Theological Challenge: Relationality Versus Modal Appearance

At the heart of the modalist error lies a misunderstanding of the biblical portrayal of divine interaction. Writers of the New Testament record a God who speaks in distinct voices and acts in relational communion with His creation. The modalistic reduction of these events to mere “modes” undermines the scriptural evidence for eternal, interpersonal relationships within the Godhead. For example:

• Divine Dialogue: Consider the baptism scene where the Father’s voice pronounces, “This is my beloved Son!” while the Son is visibly present—a dynamic impossibility if both were simply different modes of the same person.

• Patripassian Pitfall: Modalism’s implication that the Father suffered on the cross (a view labeled patripassianism) disrupts the biblical commitment to an impassible, sovereign Father distinct from the suffering Son.

• Reductionism of Divine Mystery: By treating divine personhood as a set of transient functions, modalism strips the doctrine of the Trinity of its ability to speak to the eternal exchange of love and authority that defines true divine life.

These concerns were not merely abstract; they impelled early theologians to seek a more sophisticated account that preserved both the oneness of God and the authentic relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Michael Heiser and the Two Powers in Heaven in Second Temple Judaism

Michael Heiser’s groundbreaking work on the "Two Powers in Heaven" offers crucial insight into how early Jewish thought navigated the complexities of divine unity. Heiser demonstrates that during the Second Temple period, ancient Israelites comfortably held a binitarian view of Yahweh. (4) This perspective, far from suggesting polytheism, recognized two distinct manifestations of the one God:

• The Invisible and the Visible: According to Heiser, the ancient Israelite understanding involved an invisible, transcendent aspect of Yahweh and a visible, often anthropomorphic manifestation. Biblical passages—such as certain exodus narratives and visionary texts like Daniel—support this bifurcation. In this schema, the invisible Yahweh was the sovereign ruler of the cosmos, while His visible manifestation acted as a vice-regent within the divine council. (5)

• Integrated Monotheism: Importantly, the binitarian portrayal did not contradict monotheism. For early Jews, both the invisible and visible Yahweh were not separate gods but complementary expressions of the same divine essence. The relational dynamics inherent in this duality underscore that God’s unity and internal diversity are not opposed but are mutually illuminating.

• The Christological Connection: Later, this ancient conceptual framework proved fertile ground for the early Christian identification of Jesus with the incarnate second Yahweh. While modalists would later collapse this identity into a single, shifting persona, Heiser’s research reminds us that the Second Temple world embraced a complex, relational model of divine manifestation—one that acknowledged both distinction and unity without diluting either.

Through his careful exegesis and historical contextualization, Heiser provides a robust framework for understanding how early Jews could—and did—affirm two “persons” or manifestations in one God without lapsing into polytheism. This insight challenges modern oneness propositions that attempt to simplify divine internality into a single, monolithic expression.

Implications for Refuting Oneness Theology

The historical interplay between Modalism, Sabellianism, and the Two Powers framework illuminates several critical shortcomings of oneness theology:

1. Loss of Relational Complexity: Oneness theology’s insistence on a single, undifferentiated divine personality overlooks the rich, relational depth of the biblical revelation. Early criticisms of modalism—and the corrective insight provided by the Two Powers in Heaven model—demonstrate that a framework recognizing internal divine relations is crucial to a faithful theological account.

2. Historical and Scriptural Inconsistencies: By collapsing the dynamic interplay between the invisible and visible manifestations of Yahweh, oneness theology runs contrary to the lived religious experience of Second Temple Judaism. The ancient binitarian vision, as elucidated by Heiser, allowed for the simultaneous worship of the transcendent God and His appointed vice-regent, a nuance lost in modalistic simplifications.

3. Avenues for a Fuller Christology: The early Jewish acceptance of dual manifestations in God paved the way for a more compelling understanding of Christ’s identity. Rather than reducing Christ to a mere mode of the divine, acknowledging the two powers model supports the view that Jesus—the incarnate second Yahweh—participates in the ancient, orthodox understanding of divine relationality. This reinvigorates the Christological debates by framing the incarnation as the fulfillment of a long-held Jewish insight, not as an aberration to be subsumed under an overly rigid oneness paradigm.

Conclusion

The evolution of early Christian thought—from the controversies of Modalism and Sabellianism to the nuanced binitarian ideas circulating in Second Temple Judaism—provides a compelling critique of oneness theology. Michael Heiser’s work on the Two Powers in Heaven reveals that early Jews embraced a complex but coherent understanding of divine unity and diversity. They saw in the one God a duality: an invisible, sovereign deity and His visible, vice-regent manifestation, both integral to the full expression of divine life.

This historical reflection not only refutes the simplistic premises of oneness theology but also invites contemporary theologians to resurrect a richer, relational understanding of the divine. In embracing both the unity and the interpersonal dimensions of God, modern doctrine can more faithfully reflect the dynamic mystery at the heart of Scripture—a mystery that continues to challenge and inspire believers today.