Loading...In yesterday’s post I pointed out that if one asks about an early Christian text: “Does it portray Jesus as God,” then almost always if the answer is Yes (which it usually is), it has to be qualified: “Yes, in *some sense*. “ And the question is always, in *what* sense? The reason I stress this point is that for many years – until I dug deep into research for my book How Jesus Became God – I was quite vehement, in person and in print, that the Synoptic Gospels did not portray Jesus as divine, but only the Gospel of John did.
It’s true – I still think and, I suspect, always will think – that in the Gospel of John there is little doubt about the divinity of Jesus. As we have seen, the Gospel opens with the amazing poem: “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that came into being. In him was life, and his life was the light of humans…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us….” This Word-become-flesh was the man Jesus. That’s why Jesus in this Gospel can say “Before Abraham was, I am” (8:58; using the name of God, from Exodus 3, for himself, and indicating that he existed before Abraham, who in fact lived 1800 years earlier); and why he can say “I and the Father are one” (10:30); and why he can tell Philip “The one who has seen me you has seen the Father” (14:6). Jesus’ Jewish listeners regularly understand what he is saying about himself in this Gospel; on several occasions they pick up stones to execute him for committing blasphemy. At a climactic seen at the end, doubting Thomas comes to believe in who Jesus is, and calls him “My Lord and My God” (20:28).
At the same time, it is important to stress that even though Jesus is, in some sense, God in John’s Gospel, he is NOT *identical* with God (since he prays to the Father, and is not the same as the Father). Instead of being identical with God, he is *equal* with God.
There is nothing like these self-declarations of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not go around talking about his divine character and pre-existent origin. In the older, traditional, terminology, the Synoptics present a “lower” Christology then the “high” Christology of John. And so, for many years, I argued that they did not see Jesus as God.
It still think it is true that the Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as a pre-existent being who has become incarnate and is and always has been “equal” with God the way John does. They do not have an incarnational Christology lurking somewhere behind them. What they do have, however, is an exaltation Christology, in which either (a) Jesus was understood to have been exalted to a divine status at his baptism, as in Mark and the original form of Luke (which began with ch. 3, before chs. 1-2 were tacked on in a second edition); or (b) Jesus came into existence as the Son of God because God was the one who made his mother pregnant, as in the second edition of Luke that started with chs. 1-2 and probably in the Gospel of Matthew.
Being adopted or born as the Son of God was a different way of being divine from being a pre-existent divine being made flesh. But it was still a highly exalted state of existence, above the human. And Jesus *is* that in the Synoptics. For years I had difficulty explaining features of the Synoptics that could be taken to point to his divinity in some sense. I certainly had explanations, but I was never completely satisfied with them. In these Gospels, for example, Jesus has the power to forgive sins, and he receives “worship.” These *can* be explained without thinking of Jesus as in any way divine, but it’s a little bit tricky, and at the end of the day, I think it’s easier to simply to say that these things are said of Jesus because the authors do think of him as in some sense and exalted divine being. It is not that he is equal with God (as in John), but that God has made him an exalted being, above a human character, divine.
It helps to remember, as I stressed yesterday, that ancient people thought of divinity as a continuum. Most humans are not divine; but they are more divine (i.e., more like the ultimate God) than rocks. And some humans are even more divine than other humans. Some are divinely powerful (miracle workers; great warriors, generals, emperors). Some are divinely intelligent (great philosophers). Some are divinely born (demi-gods). Some are raised to the heavenly realm at their deaths (emperors; divine men). Some are divine in several or all these ways.
Jesus is a Jewish version of this divine man in the Synoptic Gospels. The exaltation that he experienced at his resurrection in the belief of his earliest post-death followers – who had visions that convinced them that he was alive, and therefore raised from the dead by God, and so exalted to heaven to live there with God at his right hand – this exaltation of Jesus at the end of his life came to be read back into his life, so that stories were told about him in which he appeared to be divine in some sense already before he died. That led to claims that he became divine at his baptism (Mark). And then his birth (Luke). And then in a pre-existent state (John). And then in the very remote past (Arius). And then for all time, as he was the begotten of God eternally, and there never was a time before which he existed (Athanasius and the Council of Nicea).
More on how Jesus could be “slotted into” already existing notions of the divine in posts to come.
Professor Ehrman, I’m interested in your take on the sense(s) in which John’s Gospel views Jesus as “equal” with God.
Given the subordination language–“I can do nothing on my own,” “I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me,” “the Father is greater than I,” “I do as the Father has commanded me”–doesn’t this gospel portray Jesus as, in some sense, subordinate to the God of Israel and so not *fully* equal with God? Thanks!
The most intriguing thing about John is that it evidences *different* Christologies. Some passages, which come from one set of sources, embrace a low or subordinationist Christology; others a high Christology that shw Christ as divine. That’s why you have the inconsistencies.
Thank you Bart; especially for your reconstruction of a possible time-line.
But, for me, that prompts the question; when did the SENSE by which Jesus is ‘God’ become a divisive issue?
Paul, in 1 Corinthians, repeatedly confronts his antagonists – those he characterises as “the strong”; with his own perspective; as always among ‘the weak”. The ‘strong’, it seems, claimed all lesser gods than the One God as unreal, (and so argued that meat consecrated to them was no different from any other food; while Paul and the ‘weak’ abstain from these foods). But it does not appear that this issue tipped over into differences in understanding Jesus as God.
Is the earliest understanding of the issue as divisive; 1 John 4; “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”?
This has often been characterised as attacking ‘docetism’; that Jesus was God who only appeared as human. But if so; surely docetism implies a prior ‘incarnational’ Christology?
Seeing christology as a progression towards Nicea may lead us to presume that, generally, ‘higher’ succeeded ‘lower’ in the timeline. But maybe ‘high’ and ‘low’ coexisted happily for many decades.
My sense is that it became divisive whenever there were two views within the same community. I agree completely about 1 John. I just put in a post in queue today on 1 John and the controversy over docetic Christian “antichrists” (which I posted before I saw your comment!). Unfortunately it won’t show up for two weeks. But if you want to see a discussion, I cover it in How Jesus Became God; or if you’re a real glutton for punishment, in Orthodox Corruption, esp. in my discussino of the textual variant in 1 John 4:3.
Beautifully written, professor. Many thanks.
I might have to admit that reading too much about Meister Echard, Hildegard Von Bingen and even the founder of analytical Carl Gustav Jung which resembles gnosticism from a psycological point of view. They all deal with trinity (partly beautifully )partly from a different persepctive,,,
All of them, from their perception gives their view on the trinity from a perhaps more esoteric/gnostic,,,or spiritual point of view, possibly partly influenced by hellenistic ideas (neo platonism)
BESIDE that I have to admit that the more I read about Zoroastrianism,,, it sinks in an impression that this influenced Judaism, Hellenism and Christianity more than I thought of before.
In Zoroastianism you have this spiritiual oneness Ahura Mazda (much like Von Bingens and in particular Meister Echards view of the “ground”),, who starts to eminate expressions of himself into qualities (like archangles) which is still oneness (a torch touches other torches and spread, but still the same flame). Then I read in my book, called “Archeology of world religions primitivism Zoroastrianism Hinduism Jainism vol.1”, page 77 and 78 who suggest a belief of a much earlier spiritual existence of Zoroaster as the teacher, but also suggest a pre-existence back to the emination of the archangels (page 79) and it suggest that the Greeks had picked up the ideas.
Do you think that this idea of a possible pre-existing spiritual body of Zoroaster, all the way back to when Ahura Mazda eminated of the Archangles as suggested in the book referred above, could have influenced the understanding of the hellenistic and also jewish understanding of the logos which is defined in the Gospel of John? Could that have influenced the christology in John?
I think by far the most important influences on the Christian idea of the Logos were Greek philosophical thought and the Hebrew Bible; I’d say there is little connetion with Zoroastrian thought. As it turns out, we don’t know much about the most ancient Zoroastrian views, given the late date of so much of our evidence. (Even though many authors seem to say we do)
Isn’t the line “many will come in my name claiming ego eimi” in Luke/Mark giving the name of god to Jesus in the same sense as in John?
No. It’s simply how you say “claiming that it is I” or I am he” in Greek. Unless you want to say the man born blind in John 9:9 was taking the divine name for himself.
The neighbors of the blind man were saying of him, “he is not the one who used to sit and beg”, and his response is “I am”. Its makes sense. There’s no need to understand it as a divine claim.
But in Mark/Luke the deceivers are not claiming to “be” anything, other than claiming the name of Jesus. They’re not claiming to be Jesus, they’re just claiming his name.
And we know of one greek speaking first century christian who understood this name as “ego eimi”.
That’s exactly right. Whenever Ego Eimi occurs, it does not necessarily refer to the divine name, in Xn writings or any other. 99.9% of the time in Greek, it does not. It’s simply a standard way of talking in Greek.
But it should always be considered a possibility the “ego eimi” is being used as the divine name.
If it can’t be understood in any natural way – eg “before abraham was I am” – it should be understood as a claim to divinity.
In Mark/Luke if the deceivers can’t be understood as claiming to “be” anything but are claiming a name – then it should be understood as claiming the divine name.
Yes, that’s right. It’s always a possibility, at least in Christian texts. One has to look at the context to see if it’s a probability.
But the context is the deceivers claiming the name of Jesus. Doesnt that make it probable “ego eimi” is being used as the name?
No, not when you read the context. The messiah was not to be God. These antichrists are saying “I am the Christ.” They were claiming to be messiah; I don’t know how else you would say that in Greek other than Ego eimi ho Christos.”
They could say just “eimi ho christos”, but anyway its only Matthew that has the deceivers claim to be the Christ; “Many will come in my name saying ego eimi ho Christos”.
Mark/Luke just have “many will come in my name saying Ego Eimi.”
If Matthew’s is the original version then Mark/Luke’s change is best understood as giving the divine name to Jesus.
Yes, “in my name.” Who will come in Christ’s name? Ego eimi. Me! That’s *my* name.
If a deceiver walks up and says “ego eimi ho christos” its clear what they mean.
But what does it mean if they walk up and say “ego eimi”?
According to Mark/Luke they are coming in the name of Jesus.
Once again, I’m not sure you’re listening to me. They are coming “in his name,” that is, the name of Christ, saying Ego Eimi. “My name is Christ”
But “Christ” is not a name and Mark/Luke don’t mention “christ” in the passage. Only Matthew does.
Mark/Luke are claiming that many deceivers will come in the name of Jesus. And they will falsely claim to come in Jesus’s name simply by saying the words “ego eimi”.
Saying “ego eimi” is to falsely claim the name of Jesus.
Well, if they come in “my name” and is name is Christ or Jesus, then that’s the name they are coming in, not the name of God. I think we can stop this back and forth since it ain’t goin’anywhere.
Ok – thanks
Declaring Jesus is God or focusing on a higher Christology is still the safest belief to have when the rewards of Heaven or the punishments of Hell are at vividly preached every Sunday. IMO, its keeping a lot of folks in the pews.
Very glad I’ve decided to join this blog for quality entries like these. Dr. Ehrman I used to despise you as an evangelical Christian but having left my evangelical upbringing I consider you one of the brightest minds on Christian origins. Funny how ideologies can paint decent people as demons, eh?
Anyways, I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the possible kernels of incarnational Christology in Paul. I’m thinking in particular of the Philippians 2:6-11 passage, where Paul presents Jesus as once being in the form of God before emptying himself out into the form of a lowly earthly servant.
I’m somewhat intrigued at the idea that notions of an incarnation were there very early on in Christianity but only came to full fruition with John. I don’t think John had invented the incarnation whole cloth – such a radical theological spin probably wouldn’t have taken traction in the Christian community if it didn’t already jibe with the established views of Christ at the time.
Ah, I had a long discussion of that passage recently — just weeks ago. look up Philippians or “Christ Poem” as a word search and you’ll see the posts.
Dr.Ehrman tester I was reading a position of Justin martyrs apologist. He was conveying that Jesus was nothing new or different to say the sins of Jupiter. He uses a term that I believe is also used in one of Paul’s epistles “first born”. So it got me think when John speaks of a pre-existing being it can not be from eternity past. Was the concept of a eternally begotten son forgein to the NT writes. Also thank you for such informative blog posts.
“First born” is sometimes used to mean simply something like “most important.” So it’s hard to know if it is always meant temporally.
This is a bit off topic…Do you think the Synoptic Gospel writers were apocalypticists? Since they were writing at least 1 generation, if not 2, after Jesus, I wonder why each of them put the passage about ‘…there are some of you standing here who will not taste death before we see the kingdom of God’ onto Jesus’s lips. I think I read or heard you say that you thought Paul’s evangelical urgency was because he believed that Jesus’s resurrection marked the beginning of this new kingdom. I’m just confused why all three gospel writers added this line even after nothing more had happened for 35-50 years. Surely their audiences would have wondered, too.
Yes, I think they were. Even Luke — who does not hthink the end was coming in Jesus’ generation, but did think it was coming in his own. They all expected an apocalyptic end of history to come soon.
Dr Ehrman has separately pointed out that no one seems to know who Jesus was in the first half of Mark …. including Jesus family!
Given the birth narratives… how is this possible? There are so many miraculous events surrounding Jesus birth…. including god informing the family about the significance of the virgin birth. It seems inconceivable that the family could later be confused about who Jesus was.
It’s because Mark doesn’t have a birth narrative, and shows no evidence of knowing anything about Jesus’ unusual origins.
Does Mark identify Jesus as the pre-existent Logos in the story of Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52), as The Timaeus was a discussion about the Demiurge? I interpret this story to say that Jesus (the real Logos) could take away the blindness of the Greek philosophers?
No, I don’t believe he does.
Hello Dr. Ehrman.
I would like to ask you the following. Why do you think the writer of the gospel of John in John 10:34 has Jesus quoting from Psalm 82:6 where God says “you are gods” to defend himself of the jews who want to stone him for making himself equal to God?
It seems that quoting from Psalm 82 would not help Jesus in showing that he is in fact equal to God, since Psalm 82 talks about gods in plural. Is Jesus than equating himself to these other gods instead of God?
Thanks in advance. I really like your work.
I’ve always thought that that is one of those places where Jesus is giving his enemies an unanswerable puzzler to get himself off the hook for their charges against him. (You think I”m blaspheming for calling myself God? Hey, the Bible itself says we are gods!)
Three centuries of Christian debate over the SENSE in which Jesus is “God” was brought to a (decidedly definitive) end at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE in exchange for official recognition by Emperor Constantine. The formal creed that emerged from the assembly pronounced Preexistence Christology official doctrine.
Theology was, of course, academic for a Roman Empire that simply wanted AN answer for the sake of unity, the monotheism of Christianity being the very point of finally legitimating it. Theology, though a greater concern for the newly legalized Roman Church, was secondary to the empowerment it thereby acquired. ANY formal creed rendered all other theologies heretical — and deserving of extermination.
What is puzzling is how the Preexistence Christology could have been reconciled with Paul’s soteriology “that Christ died for our sins.”
How is the wrath of “a jealous god” who boasts of “punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” appeased by the death, not of a son of the offending first man, but the Son of God (even incarnate from conception, much less eternally preexisting)?
How could the sacrifice of a divine, foreordained Messiah have possibly sated Yahweh’s need for vengeance against mankind?
Dr. Ehrman, how do you reconcile Peters declaration in Matthew 16. While it is not Jesus making the proclamation, Jesus does affirm Peter when he does. P.S. Love your work. Just finished Heaven and Hell and almost done with Jesus Interrupted. Both really helped me.
Yes, in Matthew Jesus certainly understands himself to be the Son of God. (Is that what you’re asing?)
I replied to this post at length:
Jesus is God in the Synoptics (With Emphasis on the Term “Son of God” Applied to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Its Implications)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/03/ehrman-errors-2-jesus-is-god-in-the-synoptics.html
Excerpt:
Divine “I”
Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (“The Lord says…”). He distinguishes Himself from the prophets (Mt 13:17). Here are the most striking examples:
Matthew 23:34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Jud 6:8; 2 Ki 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Hag 1:12; Zech 7:12)
Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Mt 23:37; Dt 32:11-12; Ruth 2:12; Ps 36:7; 57:1; 63:7; 91:4)