Italian report asserts that the Old Testament taught a binitarian Godhead

A reader from Italy sent me a link today to an article in Italian (https://firmamentum.altervista.org/tag/binitarismo-ebraico/) that I machine-translated into English. Here are some excerpts:

The Two Heavenly Powers in Old Testament Cosmology

10 August 2025

One of the most fascinating and least explored themes in biblical theology is the presence, already in the Old Testament, of a distinction within the divinity of Israel. The idea that the one biblical God manifests himself in more than one “person” does not emerge suddenly in the New Testament, but has deep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. A careful analysis of the Hebrew text reveals passages in which something unusual occurs that cannot be reduced to a mere literary or poetic device: YHWH acts on behalf of YHWH, prefiguring what Christian theology will understand as the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

Unfortunately, many modern translations blur this distinction. … Only by returning to the original text can we grasp how the cosmology of the Hebrew Bible already attests to a “binary” model, to use Hurtado’s words, with an invisible and a visible celestial power, both identified as YHWH.

Genesis 19,24: YHWH by YHWH

The verse in Genesis 19:24, if read in the original Hebrew, is surprising for its seemingly redundant construction. We are in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by YHWH, and the text states with surprising clarity:

And YHWH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH out of heaven.

The repetition of the Divine Name is not a stylistic accident, but a theological signal of primary importance. The text is not content to attribute the action to YHWH: it feels the need to specify that it occurred me’et YHWH , “on the part of YHWH.” In other words, the act of judgment comes personally from YHWH “from heaven,” even though it is carried out by another YHWH present on the scene ! This linguistic choice suggests an intentional distinction: a YHWH who acts visibly, in direct interaction with the world, and a YHWH who remains in the heavens, invisible but the ultimate source of the judging action. …

Abraham receives the visit of three men; one of them speaks and acts as YHWH himself, while the other two reveal themselves to be mal’akhim , that is, messengers. This visible YHWH discusses Abraham face to face, accepts hospitality, and announces the impending judgment. In Gen. 19, the scene shifts to Sodom, where the punitive intervention is described with the double formula “YHWH made it rain […] from YHWH,” as if to underline the simultaneity of two divine Powers: one directly involved in the event that invokes fire from heaven (cf. Lk. 9:54; 17:29), the other that sanctions and originates its execution from heaven.

Ancient Jewish tradition did not ignore this peculiarity. The Targum Onqelos faithfully preserves the double mention, without attempting to smooth it over.

Some midrashic commentaries, such as the Bereshit Rabbah , interpret the episode as an act of justice exercised “by the heavenly judge through the earthly judge,” thus maintaining the idea of a dual and distinct operation. In certain circles of Second Temple Judaism, similar texts were used to support the doctrine of the Second Power in Heaven : a celestial figure distinct from but fully identified with YHWH. This doctrine was later rejected by rabbinic Judaism not because it was considered obsolete, but solely because of the “Christocentric” peculiarities that followers of Jesus had seen in it since the first century.

From a Christological perspective, this verse appears as a natural prefiguration of the Father-Son relationship. … The cases of Gen. 19:24 and Zech. 2:9-11 are perhaps the most striking in showing a YHWH acting in relation to another YHWH. …

It is not a question of reading the New Testament “backwards” into the Tanakh, but of recognizing that the Tanakh itself, in its original language, offers patterns and formulations that prepare the ground for a binitarian understanding of divinity . …

Hosea 1.7: Salvation “through YHWH”

The prophet Hosea, transmitting a divine oracle, records a startling statement:

I will save [it is YHWH who speaks] the house of Judah by the hand of YHWH their God.

The speaker is clearly YHWH, but the expression ba-YHWH Elohehem (through YHWH, their God) implies a mediator who bears the same Divine Name. The sentence structure cannot simply be reduced to a generic self-reference: it is a YHWH who saves through YHWH . …

Visible power and invisible power

The analysis of the texts examined thus far leads us to a fundamental distinction in the representation of YHWH in the Tanakh: that between an invisible presence , dwelling in the heavens, and a visible presence , capable of interacting directly and tangibly with humanity. This distinction is neither marginal nor the product of later theological elaboration: it is a recurring feature of the biblical narrative, deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of Israel.

The invisible YHWH is the One whom, as Exodus 33:20 states, “no one can see and live” (cf. John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). …

Alongside this transcendent presence, the Tanakh testifies to the action of a visible power of YHWH : a personal and tangible manifestation of the God of Israel who appears, speaks, guides, protects, and sometimes fights for His people. …

This dual manifestation—an invisible, transcendent God and His visible, immanent manifestation—is not an idea foreign to ancient Judaism. Some Second Temple Jewish circles (Targumim and Qurmran) elaborated this concept in what later rabbinic literature would call the Second Power in Heaven . …

This concept, far from being a Christian invention, offers fertile ground for understanding the New Testament, where the Son, visible and incarnate, reveals the invisible Father. The apostolic authors did not introduce something new foreign to Old Testament revelation, nor was this idea introduced by subsequent ecumenical councils: rather, they recognized that the Messiah Jesus was the full manifestation of that visible power of YHWH who, since ancient times, had walked alongside humanity.

While I would have cited other scriptures that the above writer did not, yes, the Hebrew scriptures, commonly referred to as the Old Testament, support binitarianism.

And, of course, so does the New Testament and early church writings.

Notice also the following which is in my free ebook Mysteries of God. What is God?:

Scholars on Binitarian Formulas

Regarding the New Testament statements on the components of the Godhead, a trinitarian scholar, William Rusch has admitted:

The binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:3 … No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament …

There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers … (Rusch WG. The Trinitarian Controversy. Fortress Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3).

Thus, a trinitarian scholar admits that the New Testament uses what he calls binitarian formulas and no doctrine of the Nicene trinity was found in the writings of those called “Apostolic Fathers.” Trinitarianism was simply not part of the original Christian faith.

Notice also:

“The term ‘Trinity’ is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article “Trinity,” p. 3012).

Not only is the word “Trinity” never found in the Bible, there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated.

In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been “…embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the ‘imminent’ Trinity (even John’s prologue is no such doctrine)” (The Trinity, p. 22). (Author’s emphasis.)

Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first chapter of John’s Gospel — the prologue — clearly shows the pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing John’s prologue, Dr. William Newton Clarke writes: “There is no Trinity in this; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God. This distinction or duality is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as key to the possibility of an incarnation” (Outline of Christian Theology, P. 167).

The first chapter of John’s Gospel clearly shows the pre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God. (Johnson G. Is God a Trinity? Ambassador College Press, 1973, p. 9)

Here is something from a Roman Catholic scholar:

… nowhere does the Bible normally and explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, … the doctrine is clearly a development … (Sungenis RA. NOT BY SCRIPTURE ALONE A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, 2^nd ed. NIHIL OBSTAT Monsignor Carroll E. Satterfield Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR Monsignor W. Francis Malooly Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, 1997. Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013, pp. 76-77)

Notice also:

According to Harnack, the Christian concept of the trinity developed … At first, only the duplex formula “God and Christ” existed … later, the Holy Ghost was added. (Ott L. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4^th edition 1960. Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah O’Sullivan. Imprimatur: +Cornelius, Ep. Corgagienis et Ap. Adm. Roseensis, 7 October 1954. TanBooks reprint 1974, p. 52)

Notice the scholarly admission (Dr. Harnack was a Protestant scholar) that, “At first, only the duplex formula “God and Christ” existed.” The word “duplex” comes from the Latin word meaning “double” or “twofold.” In other words, we are seeing another admission that some version of binitarianism, NOT trinitarianism, was how the Godhead was viewed by early Christians.

What has been called “the oldest complete Christian sermon that has survived” (Holmes MW. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004, p. 102)–outside those in the Bible–sometimes erroneously referred to as Second Letter of Clement, is support for binitarianism. This sermon was given perhaps within a year or so of the Apostle John’s death (though others have suggested that perhaps the Roman Bishop Soter wrote or gave it c. 170; Holmes, p. 103), has the following:

Brothers, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as of God, as “Judge of the living and the dead (An Ancient Christian Sermon (2 Clement), 1:1. In Holmes MW, p. 107).

So then, brothers, if we do the will of God our Father … (Ibid, p. 121).

Now the church, being spiritual was revealed in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and do not corrupt her, he will receive her back again in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is a copy of the Spirit. No one, therefore, who corrupts the copy, will share in the original. This, therefore, is what he means, brothers: guard the flesh, in order that you may receive of the Spirit. Now if we say that the flesh is the church and the Spirit is Christ, then the one who abuses the flesh hath abuses the church. Consequently such a person will not receive the Spirit, which is Christ. So great is the life and immortality which this flesh is able to receive, if the Holy Spirit is closely joined with it, that no one is able to proclaim or to tell “what things the Lord hath prepared” for his chosen ones (Ibid, p. 121).

Thus, what may be the oldest preserved sermon says to think of Jesus as God and that the Father is God, but it never indicates that the Holy Spirit is God. This is consistent with the binitarian view.

Consider that, Bishop/Overseer Ignatius of Antioch, who is the first known leader to use the term “catholic church,” wrote the following around 110-135 A.D.:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized so that by His submission He might purify the water. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 18,2–note this is translated the same by at least three separate translations as done by Dr. Lightfoot, J.H. Srawley, and Roberts & Donaldson)

Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 6,3)

Hence, Ignatius clearly recognized Jesus as God, and thus could not have been a traditional unitarian. Nor was he trinitarian.

Ignatius further wrote to the Ephesians:

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy. (Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians, Verse 0. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)

He wrote something similar to the Smyrnaeans:

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ the Beloved, which hath been mercifully endowed with every grace, being filled with faith and love and lacking in no grace, most reverend and bearing holy treasures; to the church which is in Smyrna of Asia, in a blameless spirit and in the word of God abundant greeting. I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you.” (Ignatius’ Letter to the Symrnaeans, Verses 0-1.1. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)

Professor Hurtado notes that:

there are numerous places where Ignatius refers to Jesus as “God” (theos) … Yet Ignatius refers to Jesus as theos while still portraying him as subordinate to the ““Father”. (Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2003, pp. 637, 638)

That is a binitarian view. Early Christians were careful about avoiding the charge of ditheism, likely because they were reinforcing the binitarian position that God is one family, currently consisting of the Father and the Son. That is a family relationship, in which the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28)–but remember the true saints will become part of that family. …

Gender of the Holy Spirit? …

While most translations of the New Testament into the English language use the pronoun “he” related to the Holy Spirit as well as the relative pronoun “who,” neither of those pronouns are supported by the Greek text.

Many languages, including koine Greek–the language that the New Testament was written in–use what is know as grammatical gender.

The Greek word for “spirit” is pneuma. It is a neuter gender. It is not masculine, nor should it be considered so. The Greek word for “holy” (ἅγιον) when used in “Holy Spirit” (πνεῦμα ἅγιον; e.g. Luke 1:35) is also neuter as Greek adjectives must match the gender of the related noun.

And what about the Old Testament word for spirit, is that masculine?

No.

In the Hebrew scriptures, the terms used for “Spirit” is either ruwach or ruah, which are feminine. …

Holy Spirit in the Old Testament

As mentioned before, in the Old Testament, the Hebrew terms used for “Spirit” are either ruwach or ruah, both of which are feminine.

So, obviously the Old Testament does not show the Holy Spirit as a male person and member of a trinity.

Notice what the New Catholic Encyclopedia teaches (bolding in original):

Spirit of God in the Old Testament

The specific implications of the phrase ‘‘Spirit of God’’ must be deduced from the operations ascribed to it in the Old Testament.

God’s Spirit as a Power. ‘‘Spirit of God’’ is used in the Old Testament to signify ‘‘God’s breath’’ (Jb33.4). …

According to the Old Testament, the chief characteristic of the future new covenant would be a religious and moral transformation of all mankind. So the Prophets, particularly Isaiah (61.1–4; 32.15–20), frequently spoke of God’s spirit accomplishing this work in the coming new age. …

God’s Spirit Not Presented as a Person. The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Is 48.16; 63.11; 32.15). Very rarely do the Old Testament writers attribute to God’s spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Is 63.10; Wis 1.3–7). When such expressions are used, they are mere figures of speech that are explained by the fact that the rûah: was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feelings (Gn 41.8). …

In Judaism God’s spirit was generally called ‘‘the holy spirit’’ (without capital letters because no personification is indicated). It was regarded primarily as the divine power that gave the Prophets insight into the future and knowledge of hidden things (Sir 48.24–25) and inspired the writers of sacred books (4 Esdras 14.22–48). (Spirit of God. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13. Thomson Gale, 2003, pp. 426-427).

According to Roman Catholic scholar Dr. Ludwig Ott:

Elohim and Jahweh. By this it is indicated that there are Two Persons, who are God: One, who sends, and One who is sent. Cf. Gn. 16, 7-13; Ex. 3, 2-14. …

The Old Testament frequently speaks of the “Spirit of God,’’ or of the “Holy Ghost.” By this is to be understood not a Divine Person, but ‘a power proceeding from God, which gives life, bestows strength, illuminates and impels towards the good” (P. Heinisch). (Ott L. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4^th edition 1960. Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah O’Sullivan. Imprimatur: +Cornelius, Ep. Corgagienis et Ap. Adm. Roseensis, 7 October 1954. TanBooks reprint 1974, p. 54).

Notice something from Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn:

Spirit in OT Literature. … Spirit of God denotes effective divine power … Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men. … When … the talk is of the Spirit of God the understanding is not merely of a power from God, but of the power of God, of God himself putting forth efficacious energy. (Dunn JDG. Christology in the Making, 1980, 1989, p. 133).

So, we see that Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars admit that the Old Testament does not point to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Godhead.