Bart Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God?” (Part 3): Did Judaism View the Divine-Human Realms Pretty Much Like Paganism? (Spoiler Alert–No)

Bart Ehrman’s second chapter in his book, How Jesus Became God, is entitled, “Divine Humans in Ancient Israel.” Having spent his first chapter taking about pagan concepts of what he calls a “divine-human continuum,” Ehrman then turns his attention to ancient Judaism and proceeds to basically argue that even though Judaism was monotheistic, it wasn’t really all that different than paganism when it comes to the “divine-human continuum.” As he states: “…even within Judaism there was understood to be a continuum of divine beings and divine power, comparable in many ways to that which could be found in paganism.” (54)

Now, you might ask, “How in the world can he say that Judaism wasn’t all that different than paganism if Judaism was, in fact, monotheistic?” Ehrman realizes this would be a natural question, and so he answers it in the following way: (A) it is obvious in various places in the Old Testament that the Jews were actually henotheists—yes, they only worshipped YHWH, but they acknowledged the existence of other gods; and (B) even though Jews might not have called superhuman divine beings “gods,” they still believed there were superhuman divine beings—as can be seen in places like Ephesians 6:12 and Colossians 1:16, in Paul’s reference to “principalities and powers.”

Of course, there is just a slight problem with that claim. First, although it certainly can be argued that throughout the majority of the history of ancient Israel, Israelites believed other gods existed (i.e. henotheism), it is abundantly clear in many of the later prophets, and most certainly by Second Temple Judaism, the Jews were strict monotheists who did not believe other gods even existed. And so, by Jesus’ day, what Ehrman is claiming simply wasn’t the case. And secondly, yes of course the Jews and Christians believed that “superhuman divine beings” existed—they called them angels and demons. But they clearly did not believe them to be “gods.”

And so, to be clear, the Jewish concepts regarding divine matters was not, in fact, like the pagan concepts. Judaism believed there was one God, then various angels and demons, and human beings clearly were not God, nor angels, nor demons. Paganism, on the other hand, believed there were a wide range of gods, and in their mythology, they did have figures who were literally “part god/part human.” Therefore, to say that the Jewish concept was “comparable” to the pagan concept is somewhat of a stretch, to say the least. Or, to just be blunt: It is not true.

The Divine-Human Connection in Judaism
Obviously, though, Ehrman does not concur, and so he goes about trying to argue that there really were “divine-human beings” in Judaism. First, he claims that the Old Testament talks about divine beings who temporarily become human and alludes to various passages where an angel of YHWH appears to people like Hagar (Gen. 16:7) and Abraham (Gen. 18:1). He even alludes to Exodus 3, where Moses encounters the burning bush. For that matter, I could add a few more: an angel appears to Gideon and to Samson’s mother as well.

Ehrman’s point: not only can angels become human, but in some cases, we are told that the “Angel of YHWH” is really YHWH himself in human guise (i.e. look at what Samson’s father says in Judges 13:22).

Second, Ehrman then points to Psalm 82, where God (Elohim) takes his place in the divine council, and it says, “in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment.” Then, later on, in 82:6, God says, “I said you are gods (elohim), sons of the Most High…nevertheless, you shall die like men.” Ehrman thus concludes that in this psalm God is punishing angels by making them mortal.

Ehrman’s point: angels can be made into human beings and die.

Third, he then argues that there are instances in which human beings become angels. He references two examples from intertestamental apocalyptic literature that are not actually found in the Old Testament: (A) 2 Baruch, where it is said that righteous believers will be transformed into the splendor of angels, and (B) Enoch, where it is said that God made Moses “equal in glory to the holy ones, and he made him great, to the terror of his enemies” (45:1-5).

Ehrman’s point: human beings can become angels.

Having made those points, Ehrman then brings his argument home: “In other words, if humans could be angels (and angels humans), and if angels could be gods, and if in fact the chief angel could be the Lord himself—then to make Jesus divine, one simply needs to think of him as an angel in human form” (61).

Before we move on, let’s step back and look more closely at what Ehrman claims.

A Closer Look: Angels Becoming Human?
So, has Ehrman convinced you that in ancient Judaism angels could become humans, humans could become angels, and angels could be gods, even YHWH himself? I hope not, because that is some really questionable stuff that Ehrman has just put out there.

Let’s first look at Ehrman’s first claim: that angels could become human beings. If you look at the majority of those references, they clearly say, “An angel appeared…” to so-and-so. It does not say, “An angel became a human being….” That being said, yes, in a text like Genesis 18, when YHWH and two angels appear to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, we are specifically told “three men.” And then YHWH stays behind to chat with Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah, while the two other men make their way to Sodom. And then by the time they get there, they are then referred to as two angels—still, when Lot meets them, he assumes they are two men. What are we to make of that?

The way I see it, there are two ways to understand this. First, in passages like Genesis 18, as well as the encounters with Gideon (Judges 6) and Samson’s parents (Judges 13), when read in context, it is quite clear: that being that might have been assumed to be a human being really wasn’t. It’s not that the angel actually became a human being temporarily, then switched back to being an angel—it was an angel who appeared, and remained an angel the whole time—but in appearing to the people involved, the people at first thought it was a human being.

But what about passages like Genesis 32:22-32, where we are told that a man showed and wrestled with Jacob, and it turned out to be an angel? In order to wrestle someone, that someone needs to have a physical body, right? To be blunt—that’s right! Clearly in stories like Genesis 32, as well as the ones already mentioned, things like wrestling and even talking require physicality to happen (i.e. you need a body to wrestle; you need vocal chords to make sound and talk). This leads me to my second point…

These are stories. One of the things that scholars like Robert Alter (in his book, The Art of Biblical Narrative) helped people to realize was the writers of Old Testament narrative were not only conveying history, but they were doing it through highly creative storytelling. Simply put, in the telling of history, they used artistic license. They weren’t writing a “just the facts, ma’am” kind of historical accounts we expect from newspaper reports or history textbooks.

In each one of these examples, there is a mystery that surrounds the appearance of the angel—and that’s the way it should be, because human encounters with the divine are mysterious. Furthermore, the angels make their appearance and then are quickly gone—they are not “main characters” in the given story. Therefore (spoiler alert), when Ehrman gets around to claiming that the early followers of Jesus claimed he was simply an angel in human form—his claim utterly disintegrates when it runs up against the cold hard fact that at no point in the Old Testament is there ever a claim that a main figure (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) was really just an angel in human form.

Now, I realize there is a lot more to be said, but at this point, I want to address Ehrman’s other points. Trust me, we will return to discussing Ehrman’s take on Jesus.

A Closer Look: An Angel of YHWH is YHWH?
What about Ehrman’s claim that sometime an angel of YHWH is equated with YHWH, and thus that means that angels can be God? Well, a little bit of context easily puts this claim to bed. In Hebrew, the word we translate as “angel” really means “messenger,” often referring to a royal messenger sent from a king to whomever. Therefore, that royal messenger (i.e. angel) represents the king in whatever place he is sent. As far as the recipient was concerned, the royal messenger was the king. –Obviously, not literally; but in terms of his function as the king’s messenger, absolutely.

Therefore, the same understanding goes for YHWH and the royal messengers (i.e. angels) that He, as the king of all creation sends to communicate his will to certain people. And so, when the angel of YHWH ascends in the flame and Samson’s father exclaims, “We’re going to die because we’ve seen YHWH!” we are not to read that in a wooden, literalistic fashion and think that the angel of YHWH is literally YHWH.

Simply put, an angel of YHWH isn’t YHWH; an angel of YHWH represents YHWH.

A Closer Look: You are “gods,” but You’ll Die Like Men?
What about Psalm 82, though? Isn’t that pretty clear that the “divine council” is made up of “gods,” and that God punishes those “gods” by turning them into mortal human beings? Well, maybe not…

Simply put, Psalm 82 isn’t about those divine beings we think of as “angels.” Now, the word Elohim is a very interesting word—the “-im” part sometimes can be used to make a plural form of a word (i.e. gods), but it can also act as sort of a capital letter for a singular word (i.e. God). In addition, not only can Elohim be a reference the singular God of Israel, or the “the gods” of the pagan nations, it can also be used to describe earthly judges who render judgment in the name of God.

And so, let’s translate 82:1 to show how it uses this word: Elohim stands in the congregation of El; in the midst of the elohim, He holds judgment.

The “congregation of El” is not some angelic council in heaven. The word “congregation” is yadah, which is the common word used to designate the community of Israel itself, the people of God. And so, what we have is a picture of God confronting the leaders and judges of Israel who are not judging according to the righteousness and justice of God. They have been placed in the position to represent God in the rendering of justice, but they have failed horribly. And therefore, because of this, God declares in 82:6 that they will die like mere men. God isn’t “turning angels into mortals.” He’s telling corrupt and ungodly judges of His people that their time is up.

Being a biblical scholar, Ehrman must have known this. I find it suspicious that he fails to mention it, but rather chooses to give the false impression that Psalm 82 is about God turning angels into human beings.

NOTE: Since my writing this post five years ago, I’ve read some of the work of Michael Heiser, in particular his book, The Unseen Realm, in which he argues that passages like Psalm 82 really are about God’s divine council. You can read my series on that book beginning here. That being said, the phrase, that these sons of elohim “will die like mere men” still is not saying God will punish these divine beings by turning them into human beings. It is saying that God will punish these divine beings He had set up to rule the nations by destroying them. Simply put, saying, “You will die like mere men” is not the same as saying, “You will be turned into men and then you’ll die.” It’s called a simile.

A Closer Look: Is It True that Men Can Become Angels?
What about Ehrman’s claim about human beings becoming angels? Is that true? In a word—no.

First off, Ehrman is appealing to apocalyptic literature, from books that even aren’t part of the Old Testament canon. They are invaluable to learn about what apocalyptic literature is, but the thing is they are examples of apocalyptic literature and are not meant to be taken literally or as actual history. Apocalyptic literature is filled with cosmic and sometimes rather bizarre imagery that is highly symbolic. To appeal to 2 Baruch or Enoch to argue that people really believed that human beings could be made into angels is like appealing to the Superman movie (or any of the recent comic book action movies) to argue that modern day American really believe that there are beings that are either mutant humans who have superpowers because they were bitten by a radioactive spider, or are beings from another planet who have now come to earth to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

In addition, if you want to get technical, even the examples Ehrman gives to argue that human beings become angels don’t actually say that. 2 Baruch says that human beings will be transformed into the splendor of the angels (not transformed into angels); and Enoch says God made Moses equal in glory to the holy ones (i.e. angels) (not made into an angel).

Conclusion
We are not through Ehrman’s second chapter yet, but of this we can be sure: so far, his attempt to show that Judaism had the same kind of “divine-human continuum” as the pagan world is not convincing…

…at all.