Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God – Review Pt5 (Gupta)

Last updated on: May 9, 2014 at 5:04 pm by Nijay Gupta

Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God – Review Pt5 (Gupta) 2014-05-09T17:04:56-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In Bart Ehrman’s seventh chapter of his book How Jesus Became God, attention is given to this subject: “Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies” (pp. 247-282).

Ehrman gives the lion’s share of attention in this chapter to Paul. Ehrman wishes to make the case that Paul saw Jesus as basically “an angel who became a human” (hence incarnation). From where does Ehrman get this idea? He already introduced (in the first couple of chapters) how divinity in the ancient world came in all shapes and sizes. For Jews, even if they “believed” in one supreme god (YHWH), that did not preclude belief in other kinds of divine beings (good and bad) – the pre-incarnate Jesus was one such being (in Ehrman’s estimation), one who fits what appears to be the category of an angelic being.

Paul’s Jesus is An Angel?

Can Ehrman work this out in Paul’s letters? His main case is made based on Galatians 4:14 – “you did not scorn or despise me [Paul], but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. (Gal 4:14 NRSV). Ehrman thinks that Paul is not saying “welcomed me either as an angel or as Christ Jesus,” but Ehrman argues that the Greek grammar of the text must be read as equative – Jesus Christ, the angel of God (see 252-253). Ehrman states: “By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel” (253).

In support of his reading, Ehrman argues that there is (in the NT? in Hellenistic lit?) a pattern where a “but as…as” clause treats the two “as” items in a combined (this equals that) way. So 1 Cor 3:1 – Paul could not speak to the Corinthians as spiritual people, “but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.”

In my estimation, Ehrman has not really thought this through. In Galatians, we are talking about a specific person, but here (1 Cor 3) we have two nondescript entities (fleshly people and Christian infants). It is easy to collapse them because they are general to begin with. Ehrman makes quick appeal also to 2 Cor 2:17 reinforcing his view, but he doesn’t actually talk about what the text says. Again, it suffers from the same problem as 1 Cor 3:1 – generic categories:

For we are not peddlers of God’s word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence. (2Cor 2:17 NRSV)

The categories of “persons of sincerity” and “persons sent from God” are easy to equate because they are so general. In reading these passages, the point is not that the two “as” statements are being equated, as much as that they both explain (usually in a complementary way) the nature of one side of a contrast.

Also, I question whether we can call this a pattern at all. I did some investigating on Bibleworks, and I searched the OT Pseudepigrapha, all of Josephus, all of Philo, and all of the LXX and NT and here is how many cases of this so-called “pattern” I could find: 4. Only once outside the three examples Ehrman provides (and not a relevant example from the looks of it; see Philo Mos. 2.248). Hardly this a “pattern” makes.

I would like to make one other brief point – if Ehrman were correct about this pattern (which I find improbable), then it is still possible that we could translate angelos as “messenger” (see 2 Cor 12:7). Just a thought.

Can Ehrman support this theory (about Paul’s Christ being an angel) with other evidence?

The Super-Exaltation of Christ in Philippian Hymn

As one might expect, Ehrman turns to Phil 2:6-11 to address what looks like an exaltation of a preexistent angelic Christ. So, this angel came to earth as a human and died on a cross. Then, on account of his obedience, he was exalted even higher than an angel to the status of the one God himself (see especially 257).

(One sidenote before we tackle Ehrman’s approach to this text. He finds it curious that, if Paul is resisting human selfish ambition, that he would then quote a hymn that ends with Christ’s high reward. He thinks this undermines Paul’s rhetorical concerns. I have to take issue with this. There is a strong Jewish tradition in an honor-shame society that depends on eschatological hope for reward and recognition. Even in 1 Cor 9:24, Paul tells the Corinthians, also no doubt susceptible to self-aggrandizement, to run the race to win the prize. This is very normal rhetoric in antiquity. I would point interested readers to the work of David deSilva on honor and shame in the NT world. Also, I wrote an article on this on honor and shame in Philippians for Neotestamentica)

OK, back to the Ehrman’s key arguments.

His focus here is on two matters: harpagmos (2:6) and the super-exaltation of Jesus. Let’s start with harpagmos. This word could be understood as “rob” with the idea that Jesus, though he was in the form (morphe) of God, did not try to grasp for equality with the one God. However, most translations do not take harpagmos in this way, interpreting it more as “exploit.” Thus, equality with God was not something Jesus intended to exploit. Which interpretation is right?

Here is my concern with Ehrman’s reading. What would it even look like for an angel to rob or take equality with God by force? The point of the text seems to be that Jesus was willing to change from the form of God to the form of a slave to be fully participatory in the plan of redemption from death. The key to interpreting this text seems to me to be the two uses of the language of form in 2:6-11 and Jesus changed from the “God-form” category to the “slave-form” category. If that is the focus, then Paul is not imagining a range within a category (levels of gods) just as he would not have recognized a range of human forms.

What about the super-exaltation of Jesus? Does that mean he is being “promoted,” as it were, from angel to lord? Again, I think not. I take a narrative approach here – one has to see the nature of Jesus’ condescension to appreciate how “high” God must raise him to give him due honor. If he even died on a cross (undeservedly, and for the sake of the unrighteous, and in obedience to God), then it would take a super-exaltation to make a full reversal of his crucified stigma.

Again, it may not convince others, but I think it doubtful that the one God would reward an angel with honors and recognitions due to the one God alone (see Isa 45:22-23). What happened to “I am God, and there is no other” (45:22)? Is Ehrman insisting that Paul thinks YHWH transfers that to Jesus? Ehrman’s only response to this is – *shrug*, didn’t seem to bother Paul and other early Christians.

I just don’t buy that.

I cannot say I have driven the discussion (of Phil 2) forward very much, but it is clearly one of the most complex passages to interpret in the whole NT. I find it rather dubious that Ehrman dares to dip (ever so briefly) into such a complex textual discussion and expect it to come out in his favor or settle the matter.

Ehrman goes on in the chapter and dives here and there into Hebrews and John and other NT texts to show how some Christians began to think in terms of incarnational Christology. Ehrman attributes to the earliest Christian writers a lot of creativity and variance. I would like to attribute to Ehrman a lot of creativity and variance!

Evaluation

Does Ehrman get Paul right? If Ehrman’s main argument is that Jesus was viewed as an angel, I doubt it. This evidence for this is far too slim and ambiguous. Perhaps my biggest concern on a general level would be that angels (in Jewish tradition) may have appeared on earth on a number of occasions, but they were never born on earth (someone stop me here if I am wrong). In Tobit, Raphael makes it clear he was never actually incarnated, he only pretended to eat and drink. But Paul would have known a Jesus who had and has a real body. Also, when angels come to earth, even if appearing human, they are eventually re-admitted to heaven and become their angelic bodies again. But Paul is quite clear that Jesus remains embodied, even as God, for eternity (Phil 3).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 8, 2014

Kyrios Christology: One More Time (Gupta)

Next Post

May 11, 2014 Video Resource: Luke Timothy Johnson - Learning the Living Jesus (Gupta)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz