Bart Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God” (Part 11)–Jesus: What and Angel!

We are now in the home stretch of my extended book analysis of Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God. In this post, I will be covering chapter 7, entitled, “Jesus as God on Earth (Early Incarnation Christologies).”

In a nutshell, what Ehrman argues in this chapter is the following:

1. A few of Jesus’ followers had visions of him after his death and were thus convinced that Jesus has “resurrected” in the sense that God had exalted him to heaven—this is what Ehrman calls Exaltation Christology: namely that Jesus was a human being whom God favored and exalted to divine status.
2. This original message led some of Jesus’ followers (after the original disciples) to conclude that since Jesus had been exalted to heaven, that he must have been become an angel.
3. From that, the next step was to conclude that Jesus wasn’t just some ordinary angel, but he probably was the Angel of the Lord…and angels are pre-existent, so therefore, Jesus must have always existed.
4. And so, writers like John (in his prologue of his Gospel) then equated Jesus with the Logos (i.e. God’s Wisdom) through whom God created the world.
5. And voila, within less than 60 years, the original Christian declaration of, “Jesus is a godly human being who was exalted to divine status” became “Jesus is the pre-existent Angel of the Lord.”

Not to sound like a broken record, but as always, there are nuggets of truth in what Ehrman says in this chapter. Unfortunately, the way he strings them together and interweaves some unsubstantiated assertions without any evidence, ultimately leads to a picture of both Jesus and first century Christian belief that is, at best, completely fabricated and baseless, and at worst, purposely deceptive.

It has to be made clear: Ehrman’s claims and speculations have no basis in fact. They are a product of his own imagination, and he masks them with claims of scholarship and historical criticism.

Jesus Was an Angel…and Paul Said So?
“Exaltation Christologies became transformed into incarnation Christologies as soon as believers in Jesus came to see him as an angelic being who performed God’s work here on earth. To call Jesus the Angel of the Lord is to make a startlingly exalted claim about him. …As it turns out, as recent research has shown, there are clear indications in the New Testament that the early followers of Jesus understood him in this fashion. Jesus was thought of as an angel, or an angel-like being, or even the Angel of the Lord—in any event, a superhuman divine being who existed before his birth and became human for the salvation of the human race” (250-51).

So, where does Ehrman get this idea that early Christians thought Jesus was an angel, or an angel-like being, or even the Angel of the Lord? Apparently, the Apostle Paul. Now, even though Ehrman confesses being perplexed by Paul because Paul “does not spell out in systematic detail his views of Christ” (251), nevertheless, Ehrman is convinced that “Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human” (252).

That sentiment is truly amazing in and of itself. First, in true former-fundamentalist fashion, Ehrman expresses frustration with Paul because Paul doesn’t spell everything out in a clear-cut systematic fashion. I’m sorry, but Paul was a first century Jew, and not a post-Reformation systematic theologian. He wasn’t in to writing systematic theology. And secondly, despite admitting that Paul doesn’t clearly spell out his views of Christ in a systematic fashion, Ehrman nevertheless confidently declares that Paul thought Christ was an angel.

That truly is astounding that one can complain Paul does spell his view of Christ out, and then in the very next breath say what Paul’s view of Christ was.

Galatians 4:13-14
But where exactly does Ehrman get this idea that Paul thought Jesus was an angel? Look no further than Galatians 4:13-14. In those verses, Paul is talking about how the Galatians took care of him when he first arrived, despite the fact that he was suffering from some sort of infirmity. He writes, “…though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but rather as an angel of God you welcomed me, as Christ Jesus.”

Now you might be thinking, “What is so strange about that? Paul is basically saying, ‘You welcomed me as you would have welcomed an angel, or even Christ Jesus himself.’” And if you thought that, you wouldn’t be alone—in fact, that is the way it has been understood for the past 2,000 years.

Well, according to Ehrman, we’ve all been wrong this whole time. Ehrman claims that Paul equating angel of God with Christ Jesus, and is thus saying, “You welcomed as an angel of God, specifically as that one angel of God named Christ Jesus.” Ehrman justifies this way of reading it by claiming the grammatical construction in Galatians 4:14 is the same as in I Corinthians 3:1 and II Corinthians 2:17.

• I Cor. 3:1: “I couldn’t speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.”
• II Cor.2:17: “We are not peddlers of God’s word; but rather as out of sincerity, but rather as from God, but rather as in the sight of God….we speak in Christ.”
• Gal. 4:14: “…though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but rather as an angel of God you welcomed me, as Christ Jesus.”

Therefore, Ehrman concludes, since in I Cor. 3:1 “as infants” comes after “as fleshly people” and the two are clearly equated to each other, and since in II Cor. 2:17, the “out of sincerity,” “from God,” and “in the sight of God” are all equated to each other, then the “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” in Galatians 4:14 should be seen as being equated with each other—hence, Christ Jesus is an angel of God.

Convinced? Well, you shouldn’t be. Why not? Because the grammatical construction in the original Greek isn’t exactly the same. It’s hard to describe the Greek construction in English, but I’ll try.

In I Corinthians 3:1, the Greek actually follows a typical construction in English, with the verb coming before both similes, and the “but rather as” marking the distinction with what comes before it: “spiritual people” as opposed to “fleshly people.” The second “as” simply acts as an elaboration on “fleshly people.”

• I was unable to speak to you as spiritual people
  but rather as fleshly people
  as infants in Christ.

In II Corinthians 2:17, the Greek construction is different. After the initial negative statement (we are not peddlers), there are three successive “but rather as” statements that all compliment one another, but clearly contrast the first statement. And then, it all ends with a positive statement (we speak in Christ).

• We are not peddlers of God’s word
  but rather as out of sincerity
  but rather as from God
  but rather as in the sigh of God
  we speak in Christ.

In Galatians 4:14, the Greek construction is different yet again. After the initial statement (you didn’t despise me), there is one “but rather as” statement that contrasts the idea of being despised, followed by a second verb (you welcomed me), and only after that second verb do we have the simple “as” Christ Jesus.

• …you did not scorn or despise me
  but rather as an angel of God
  you welcomed me
  as Christ Jesus

It should be clear. Contrary to what Ehrman claims, the Greek construction is clearly not similar in any of those three verses. Yes, in all three, the “but rather as” statements all serve to contrast the initial statement in each verse. And yes, in I Cor. 3:1, the simple “as” statement that follows the initial “but rather as” statement compliments it while continuing to contrast the initial statement. But in Galatians 4:14, there is that extra verb (you welcomed me), right in between the “but rather as an angel of God” and the “as Christ Jesus,” thus seemingly to break up any complimentary connection between “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus.”

Given the fact, therefore, that the Greek construction isn’t similar (despite Ehrman claiming it is), and the additional fact that nowhere else in Paul’s letters does he say Christ was an angel, I think it’s best to say that Ehrman’s claim, if not baseless, certainly is on the thinnest ice imaginable.

Philippians 2:6-11, John’s Prologue, Colossians, and Hebrews
Nevertheless, Ehrman then uses his claim regarding Galatians 4:14 to justify re-interpreting the famous passage in Philippians 2:6-11 to be saying that Jesus was a preexistent angel of God who came to earth out of humble obedience, who was then rewarded by God who exalted him to an even high level of divinity than before.

Now, Ehrman notes that some scholars claim (for reasons I’m not going to bother get into) that Christ is being portrayed like Adam in this poem. Ironically, though, Ehrman says he’s not convinced of the Adam-Christ connection because, if that were the case, Ehrman writes, Paul “surely would have done so more explicitly” (261). Even though that’s true, I do not understand how Ehrman could then turn around and suggest that the poem is suggesting Jesus was an angel—that is even less explicit than the Adam connection.

Ehrman makes it clear that the early Christians thought Jesus was divine in some sense, but then he claims (without any evidence) that they understood Jesus as, you guessed it, an angel: “Paul clearly thought Jesus was God in a certain sense—but he did not think that he was the Father. He was an angelic divine being before coming into the world; he was the Angel of the Lord…” (269).

Ehrman then turns his attention to John’s Gospel and (actually correctly) notes that in John’s Gospel Christ is portrayed as the Logos become flesh. In Greek philosophy, the Logos was understood to be the organizing principle throughout the cosmos, and in Jewish thought it was equated with God’s Wisdom through which He created the world—we see this in passages like Proverbs 8 or the intertestamental work Ben Sirach. Thus, particularly in John’s prologue, Christ is described as God’s Wisdom in the flesh, as a human being.

Yet for some reason (and certainly not because of anything actually in the text), Ehrman just continues on with his “Jesus was seen as angel” mantra.

And at that point, Ehrman simply goes to any passage in the New Testament that speaks of Christ as the preexistent Son of God and declares, “Angel!”

Colossians 1:15 -20, where Jesus is described as the image of God and the firstborn over all creation? Angel!

Or Hebrews 1, where it is explicitly said that Jesus, being the Son of God, is greater than the angels? And where is literally says in Hebrews 1:5: “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you?’” That’s right! That must mean Jesus was an angel!

Conclusion
At some point, it just as to be said: Ehrman’s portrayal of Jesus and the early Christian beliefs about Jesus is simply silly. It is very hard to take someone seriously who can at a passage like Hebrews 1:5 and say, “Oh, that verse that says Jesus is God’s Son and not an angel? That’s saying Jesus was an angel.”

The conclusions and claims Ehrman makes in his book are not based in any known history or text at all. They are, for all intents and purposes, products of Ehrman’s own imagination. He simply won’t accept the testimony of the biblical texts we have that the earliest Christians really did believe Jesus physically resurrected from the grave, and that the resurrection revealed him to be the Son of God, and not just some angel.

And I want to make clear, even if one doesn’t believe the biblical testimony is true, one—if one were honest—would have to agree that that is what the earliest Christians believed right from the start.

And sadly, it seems obvious to me that Ehrman isn’t being honest—first and foremost to himself. And so, when he says near the end of the chapter, “Once Christians thought of Jesus as an angel—and that could have happened very early, perhaps in the first years of the movement—the way was opened for the idea that he had always been an angel, and therefore a preexistent divine being. And so an incarnational Christology was born,” (279)—perhaps the best thing to do is just quote Luke Skywalker:

“Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.”