Loading...In my previous post I showed how Jews could and did conceive of humans who became super-human beings — angels. But that’s a far cry from thinking humans could be GOD! And yet the Jewish followers of Jesus claimed that’s what he was. How’d that work exactly?
That may come as a surprise: Jews who were monotheists thought that others could be God, along with the one God? Uh, how does *that* work?
As it turns out, you can find it in the Hebrew Bible and in later Jewish traditions as well. Angelic beings are sometimes called “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82, esp. vv. 1, 7); a figure called “The Son of Man” is considered a divine being before whom the entire world falls down in worship (1 Enoch 48:2-7); God’s “Wisdom,” a being separate from God himself, is said to have created the world (Wisdom of Solomon 9:-10); so too God’s “Word” (the Logos) is called “God” and “the second God” (Philo, Dreams 1.230 and Questions on Genesis 2.62).
But more than that, even some Jews held to the idea that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
(A little bit off topic)
Dr. Ehrman, thanks for your excellent course explaining the origins and problems with traditional hell. Similar problems exist for the notion of a judgment day. If Jesus atoned for the sins of all people, in every generation, past, present, and future then all people should be saved. You pointed out that those who say otherwise claim that salvation is a gift that must be accepted and the “damned” just refused to accept it. But since their sins have already been atoned for, they already have the gift. They have the gift whether they accept it or not. So, salvation cannot be a gift that must be accepted. So, how can the doctrine of the atonement be consistent with hell and some people being damned on a judgment day?
A very long standing debate among Christian theologians has to do with whether the atonement was valid for everyone (“unlimited atonement”) or onlyu for the faithful (“limited atonement”).
Good point, and this goes back to the question of what a person has to do to get salvation in the case of limited atonement. Is it just being a good person, like in Matthew chapter seven? Or is it believing the claimed right esoteric doctrines? In that latter case, if human good works aren’t good enough to attain salvation, how could having esoteric beliefs be good enough to attain salvation? Once the idea of limited atonement caught on, the Christian world had to decide what people needed to do to attain it.
For example, theologians could have claimed that believing 1+1=2 gives people salvation in the case of limited atonement. Of course, the Christian world probably never considered that and, if it had, it would have been rejected because it is too people friendly. Instead, the bigger half of Christendom settled on the unfriendly idea that salvation is attained by believing esoteric stuff that’s unknowable. Why do you think they did this? Was it done because it is a clever way to indoctrinate people?
I don’t think early Christianity was focused on esoterica. The message was pretty simple. There is one God, the Creator. Christ is his Son. He died for sins. Believe in him and have eternal life. Don’t and have eternal damnation. It’s only when you start digging philosophically into how all that can work that it becomes virtually incomprehensible, but off hand I can’t think of any sources that suggest it was seen that way.
Yes, but why did they make eternal life and eternal damnation dependent on believing in him? Perhaps you don’t have a theory for it. I asked AI this question and this was its answer:
The shift toward defining salvation through correct belief (orthodoxy) in complex, abstract doctrines rather than just practice (orthopraxy) emerged from historical and structural pressures rather than a singular conspiracy to indoctrinate.
The Barrier to Entry: Making salvation dependent on complex metaphysics (like the Trinity or Hypostatic Union) meant ordinary people could not navigate salvation alone. They required an authorized hierarchy of priests and bishops to interpret the truth for them.
Enforcing Compliance: Demanding belief in the unknowable serves as an ultimate test of loyalty. If you can convince people to assent to things that defy human logic, you establish an authority that supersedes individual reason and empirical observation.
Ultimately, what began as an urgent effort to keep a fractured movement together evolved into a powerful bureaucratic structure where intellectual compliance became the primary measure of faithfulness.
My point was simply that it’s not particularly esoteric. I’m dealt with this question a lot. It’s actually not a matter of orthodox abstract doctrines. It’s a matter of accepting the salvation that has been offered. Doctrines develop only later.
Good point. My issue was trying to understand how and why the esoteric doctrine that non-believers in Jesus are damned got formulated. Believing in Jesus as the only way to salvation is, itself, an esoteric doctrine. I think AI nailed it. Bottom line, it’s about controlling people. And there’s no better way of doing that than through “intellectual compliance”. In hindsight, it’s simple. I should have thought of it myself.
I don’t think it was just about controlling people. It was far more aboutnunderstanding the justice of God and and his eternal existence. I discuss where the ideas came from in my book Heaven and Hell.
I think you err and confuse two different things. The punishment for trespassing God’s commands is mandatory death; Adam trespassed, the Fall occurred, thus cursing us, the entire humanity, to death. All dead go to Hell (or a milder Hell like Sheol – similar to Hades). Then Jesus came along and atoned for the primordial sin of Adam (not for the ones of your life time); the effects of the Fall are not reversed, they still persist, but now the humankind is not sentenced to death directly, but it has a chance of living forever with God. Jesus defeated Death; you can, too. The concept of Heaven was defined more clearly and strengthened positively (while Hell worsened).
To get to Heaven 2 things are necessary: a) faith and b) goodworks. But at the end of your lifetime, no matter how much faith and how many works you did, it is considered still not enough; so God makes the extra step and “gives” you as a “gift” the life eternal nearby Him.
This is basic Christian lore. Jesus atoned for only the primordial sin; salvation made possible; men must have faith&goodworks to receive the gift of Heaven; otherwise, it’s Hell.
Dr. Ehrman, thank you for your presentation on the history of hell that was presented on Saturday. (I was one of the deadbeats who did not register, but followed the link sent out and watched the lecture.) Unfortunately I could not stay for the Q&A. So I don’t know if this was asked.
Your conclusion that there have been many critical scholars and theologians (starting with Origen) who argue for universal salvation was a congruent topic for me. I have recently read “Grace Saves All, The Necessity of Christian Universalism” by David Artman, who lays out historical and scriptural arguments for Universalism. (As opposed to limited atonement and predestination, i.e. Calvinism.) My question is: are you aware of this work? Your concluding remarks were very much aligned with Artman.
No, I’m afraid I’m not. But there’s a lot written on it and very few authors have something original to say about it, since they are all getting their information from the same ancient sources.
I have noticed that in John 14:6 Yeshua claims that no one comes to the father through him – but he doesn’t say through belief in him – despite the common interpretation. I recently looked up some info on the Jewish view of the afterlife and it sounds like the Moschiach was supposed to open up Heaven so the dead could finally enter.
Despite being in John rather than Matthew, is there any discussion that he may be referring to his belief that he was the Moschiach and thus would open up Heaven for others to reach the Father rather than that belief in him is the way? Matthew 7:21-3 clearly describes righteousness as the measure rather than belief.
Good question. You’re right that John 14:6 doesn’t say *how* a person gets to the Father through Jesus, but it’s pretty clear throughout the rest of John that it is through believing in him (Jesus explicitly says this repeatedly). So if we’re interested in what this one verse means (for the author) we need to look at the other passagees that he also writes, if you see what I mean. And yes, other authors have other ideas about it.
If you want my opinion, Veronica… in John 14:6 as in others places (probably like Matthew) you’ll find this saying about Jesus being the way – this must be understood metaphorically, as it is taken that Jesus’s body is a metaphor for the Church. Believers do not need a Temple anymore, that it was destroyed anyways, but still need a church for their salvation, so they build their church on the Jesus concept.
Jesus himself never actually said to pray to Him directly, He always said to pray to the Father (Father’s prayer), do the will of the Father, and to follow closely the Mosaic Law (the 5 books of Moses, Prophets and Wisdom – see the episode of feeding the masses). However, a church-like structure must exist, and this is it: Jesus = the Church. Jesus is THE way to get to the Father.
Now for Matthew it is tricky because it has 2 depths of understanding, the space is limited, but in short, Jesus addresses there the priesthood class and shows them how to organize the Church and how to behave themselves; the context is about false prophets.
BTW, original terms are “Jesus” and “Messiah”, not otherwise, sorry.
thank you for bringing this up. how can I love Jesus if I don’t understand him. 20 years ago, I knew God & the/his Spirit, but Jesus- that caused my puritanical obedience, how could I love God/man.
thanks Dr Ehrman for keeping the Bible a living book- in that despite most of my beliefs are parallel or perpendicular to those I was taught before undergrad. I am not stagnant. I think that is called exercising the spirit!
Do we know why it was so important for Christians to make Jesus be God? I understand how he ‘became’ God. But I never really understood why. Why was it so important (especially in light of so many texts saying explicitly that Jesus was not God) for Christians to make and believe him to be God?
I don’t think the sequence was first a desire to make Jesus God and then figuring out a way to do it; instead, I think some of the disciples (for whategver reason) thought/believed that they saw him alive after he had been crucified, thought/believed that this meant God had raised him from the dead, thought/believed he had actually been taken up to the heavenly realm (since he was a live but clearly wasn’t around any more), and thought/believed (as did almost everyone else in the world) that that would have made him a divine being (since that’s what ascending to the realm of God/the gods meant).
Dear Dr Ehrman-How fascinating. If I may ask, would you say that the concept of a naturally born mortal human ascending and transforming to become a divine being or hyper divine angel was a concept already in existence within various strands of judaism both prior to and after the life of Jesus?
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to show.
Congratulation Bart on the Hell lecture and on these subsequent articles!
In this article, citing from Psalm 2, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.”, you said: “In this case the king is not adopted by God; he is actually born of God. God has brought him forth.”
What does this mean? What is the idea behind it? To me it looks quite adoptionist rather than anything else, but you said it is not. Care to explain? And how does this affect the subsequent image of Messiah and/or Jesus?
Thank you!
Ah, yeah, it’s a bit tricky. God does not say, in this Psalm, that I have adopted you to be my adopted son. He says today I have begotten you. “Begotten” is a word we don’t use much (unless we’re quoting the Bible) but it refers to the father’s role at birth. The mother conceives and bears and births the child; the foather begets the child. And so the child actually becomes the man’s ownn child. The child is not someone else’s child later legally adopted, but is actually the person’s biological child. God begets the king. He brings the king into being. (either way, of course, it’s a metaphor)
“‘No one thought a human was the one Almighty God; but humans could be divine and called ‘god.'”
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I have heard you say in a debate that you believe Mark and potentially the other authors of the synoptic gospels thought Jesus was divine. Do you mean in the sense quoted above or that they actually believed he was the one Almighty God?
I mean that Mark believed Jesus was adopted by God and exalted to a divine level at his resurrection.