Loading...Increasingly over the past couple of years I have heard people say that Christians think that Jesus is Yahweh. I suppose some do (in fact I’ve come to learn that some absolutely do). But I don’t think that’s what Christians have typically though over the years/centuries. I’ll be devoting two posts to the matter.
First some background. In the Hebrew Bible, there are various ways authors refer to God, just as people today speaking English might say God, the Almighty, the Creator, The Sovereign of all, The Lord God Almighty, or if you’re into 60s and 70s theology, the Ultimate Ground of our being – all to refer to the same divine entity.
In Hebrew the basic term for “God” is “El” or “Elohim.” The latter is the plural and is the much more common term. It is much debated why the plural is used; no Jewish or critical Christian scholar, I should stress, thinks that it is because ancient Israelites thought of God as a trinity. More likely it is a plural of majesty, elevating God’s importance. It is worth noting that the plural noun is given a singular verb – already in the first three words of the Bible: “In the beginning (that’s all one word in Hebrew), God (Elohim, plural subject) created (singular verb).”
But God is called various things in the Hebrew Bible, such as El Shaddai (God Almighty) and Adonai (Lord).
On top of these descriptive nouns, though, God has an actual, personal name in the Hebrew Bible. To make sense of this, I need to remind you …
Members of the blog get five substantial posts each and every week. It costs little to join, and the entire fee goes to charity. So why not join? Click here for membership options
(BTW: the English name “Jehovah” is actually the word Yahweh, provided with vowels, with the understanding that Y becomes J in English)
I always understood that Jews, when coming across “YHWH” in Biblical readings, would substitute “Adonai”. Later, when vowel diacritics became common, “YHWH” was given the diacritics for “Adonai,” since that is the name that would actually be spoken. Later Christian writers, translating the Bible, were either unaware of this or preferred to ignore it, and therefore “Jehovah” is what you get if you take the consonants of “YHWH” and combine them with the vowels of “Adonai” (after vowel substitutions and vowel shifts in later English). I that correct?
Yes, I’ve posted on that. Maybe I’ll repost it!
Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 12:3
Sir, In the above verse it is said that the Lord, does it mean the YHWH?
No, it means Adonai.
Wasn’t El a specific deity from the Canaanite Pantheon who was married to the deity Asherah?
I have heard ‘Jesus = Yahweh’ a few times, all related to anachronistic interpretations of the Johannine ‘I am’ declarations. If modern Christians identify Jesus with Yahweh, it’s likely due to their readings of passages like that and also Matt 28:19, Phil 2:9.
“But I can’t think of any ancient Christian source that talks about Jesus as Yahweh himself. Jesus is the son of Yahweh.”
Since the LXX was popular amongst Christians of the first centuries, wouldn’t they read Exodus 3:14 as a divine ontological claim rather than as a revelation of a personal name?
I’m not sure there was one set interpretation of Exod 3:14 among the early Christians. But I’d be intersting in learning!
I guess the passage in John’s gospel, where Jesus says, ‘ Before Abraham was, I am’, is taken (by some) to indicate that Jesus was identifying himself with Yahweh. But, wouldn’t the fact that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and not Hebrew (I assume that ‘I am’ in Aramaic is slightly different to ‘I am’ in old Hebrew) and that it was being reported in Greek anyway, effectively undermines this thesis?
Not necessarily. And notice, in Exodus 3 it is the Angel of the Lord who speaks from the bush (though so closely identified with YHWH that he is called that too)
The conservative Christians that I know have always thought of Jesus as the son of God and at the same time being God himself due to their belief in the Trinity. The thought is if you know Jesus, you know God since they are one in the same. I have heard this for most all of my life.
“The logic seems to be that if Jesus is God, then he must be the God of the OT, which means he is Yahweh.”
Yes, exactly. I’ve actually heard Christians claim that God of the old Testament is the Father, and that Christ is the Son – with the Father being synonymous with Yahweh. I guess the reasoning is that God of the OT was solely operative as the Father and it took him some time to reveal his co-eternal son?
Also, Dr. Ehrman, do you plan on reviewing Dale Allison’s latest book? Would love to hear your opinion on it.
I wasn’t planning on it. But it looks interesting. Maybe I’ll see if he wants to post on it….
I went to an evangelical bible college and taught at a fundamentalist Christian School. I’m pretty sure every bible teacher in my circles would say that Jesus is Yahweh. They would argue that if Jesus is God, then he would have to be Yahweh. I don’t remember ever hearing an explanation of the Trinity. It was simply a “mystery”.
To clarify, just about every bible teacher I’m referencing was educated at like-minded unaccredited fundamental evangelical “colleges”, so I’m not saying this is a popular theological position among the clergy. I do think if you asked any random member of your average Christian church, they would most likely say that Jesus is Yahweh. It just sounds like the common sense position to anyone uneducated in heavy theology.
Amazing. Did they think he was God the Father?
Bart,
Admittedly, I am somewhat surprised at your not thinking evangelicals genuinely believe Jesus is Yahweh. Despite not being trinitarian, it was self-evident that if Jesus was one of the three persons of the God – who is tri-personal – and is named Yahweh – Jesus had to be Yahweh too – though NOT the Father (in direct answer to your question).
Thus, essentially there are “three” persons/consciousnesses named Yahweh. There really is no way around it unless you decide to artificially limit Yahweh to only one of the three consciousnesses that make up the triune evangelical deity.
Yeah, crazy… and maybe that is why I never bought trinitarian theology…:-)
OK. But I’ve never heard Yahweh referred to as the Trinity.
The people I have been with with say that Jesus and God the Father are the same. They are very uneducated in the subject and are not interested in being educated about the subject.
I am surprised that you do not see some of this type of belief with your students?
They tend to be a bit more sophisticated than that. But if they the Father and the Son are the same, then to whom was Jesus praying?
The people I know did not think about it like that. Jesus and God the Father are one and the same. He (They) decided to send Jesus (God the Son) to Earth while God the Father stayed in Heaven. So God the Son was praying to God the Father. I am sure that would be their explanation. I have heard this for all of my life (60 years). You really did not hear this from people when you were a conservative evangelical Christian? What about your students at Rutgers University?
No, never heard it. The idea they are the same is an ancient heresy, and educated evangelicals know that.
I would say “yes”. Again, there wasn’t much fleshed out about the Trinity. But we were clearly taught there is one god, Jesus is God, Yahweh/the Father is God,
So I’m pretty sure if you had pressed me at that time, I would have said “yeah, Jesus is also the Father”. That’s how I understood the Trinity.
I distinctly remember modalist language being used at times. Though, I don’t think that was how the clergy intended it to come across.
“… it was an offense to his holiness – that is, sacrilegious – to say the name …”
Are there other examples of this “he-who-must-not-be-named” phenomenon in antiquity?
None that I know of.
Yes. In Ancient Athens there were ‘anonymous altars’ presumably because their gods were not to be named. Similarly, the Erinyes were referred to as the ‘anonymous gods’ because their names were ritually taboo. There are other references to ‘nameless goddesses’ that are the subject of worship. See Albert Henrichs, “Anonymity and Polarity: Unknown Gods and the Nameless Altars at the Areopagus” Illinois Classical Studies 19 (1994) 27-58. He also talks about references to similar cults elsewhere in Greece.
Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Book 6
CHAPTER 20
About Isaiah 19:1-4
(..)I contend that it can only be understood consistently, of the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ to men. For He, being Word of God and Power of God, fulfilled the aforesaid prediction both literally and metaphorically, visiting the land of the Egyptians on a light cloud. The name, “light cloud,” is allegorically given to the visitation He made by means of the Body, which He took of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit(…) And surely this part of the prophecy was literally fulfilled, when the Angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said: “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell thee.” For then, the Lord God the Word, uniting with the child’s growth, and present in the Flesh that had been furnished Him of the Holy Virgin, visited the land of the Egyptians. His flesh was “thick” as representing bodily substance, “light” again through its being better than ours, and it is called “a light cloud “because it was not formed of the sensuous passions of corruption, but of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Ehrman.
I will now make a bold statement. I’m pretty sure I know who this virgin was, who the Christians portray as the mother of Christ. Although she is attributed some qualities from other women in the books of Moses. And also who her betrothed husband was.
In addition, when these pieces have fallen into place, I think I have an idea where the name Nazareth or the sect name Nazareer probably comes from, which in this case I assume has a particularly deep telogic meaning. (Although I’m sure that the place named Nazareth was a real place at that time as well.)
I can elaborate in depth if you wish.
The prophecy Jacob gave to Judah:
– “A ruler shall not fail from Judah” Genesis 49:10
The problem is that there were no ruler out of Judah until King David came many generations later. Did this prove that Jacob’s prophecy had failed?
Judah got married and had three children. It’s now that Tamar was introduced. Judah in turn married away Tamar to his sons, but Thamar remained a virgin. Judah was reluctant towards Thamar and sendt her away. He didn’t know that God had a holy plan for her.
Thamar took off her widow’s clothes and adorned herself as «a bride» ready to carry the future king. Everything happened according to the holy providence and the prophecies.
Was this an act of fornication, as stated in John 8:41 «We have not been born of sexual immorality»?
It was understood as part of God’s plan. The text does not explicitly say that they had intercourse.
After three months, when Tamar no longer could hide her pregnancy, Judah became both angry and upset, but was convinced when he saw the pledge he had given Tamar. Judah understood that there were greater forces he was fighting against. Afterwards, Judah didn’t have intercourse with Thamar. Tamar remained a “virgin”.
Through Eve, the devil had pointed out the tree in the garden that would cast Adam out of Paradise. Through Tamar, the angel had pointed out the staff of Judah – the Cross – that would lead to salvation.
But the text clearly says that Tamar gave birth to twins? Yes, a twin birth in the sense that Jesus was both the Son of Man and the Son of God. The virgin did not give birth to an ordinary man. His body was made of the Virgin AND the Holy Spirit.
«His flesh was “thick” as representing bodily substance, “light” again through its being better than ours, and it is called “a light cloud “because it was not formed of the sensuous passions of corruption, but of the Holy Spirit.» – Eusebius.
This is the Son of Man and the Son of God, born of the Virgin, who appears to Moses in Exodus.
Dr. Ehrman. In Jesus, two different natures were united. Jesus was both True God and True Man.
The twins Perez and Zerah symbolized this duality. Perez as the Son of David and Zerah as the Son of God.
It is here that the term “Nazarene” may find its explanation. The Greek Ναζαραῖος can come from the combination of Να Ζαρά where Ζαρά is the Greek name for Zerah. The meaning in Greek can be something similar to; “This Zerah”?
In this way, both Bethlehem and Nazareth will also point to the duality of Jesus’ nature.
Bethlehem because Jesus was the Son of David.
Nazareth because Jesus was the Son of God.
I recall an evangelical writer years ago opposing a belief he described as: “There is one God, and his name is Jesus.” Kind of an evangelical Unitarianism!
I don’t understand how Christians could NOT have equated Jesus with YHWH. He was “with” The Father at the Creation, no? So who was the Father? None other than our old buddy YHWH, right? But Jesus and God are one (and three, too, but basically one person, in three persons, at the same time, somehow).
Then who is the Father if Christ is YHWH? So Jesus is the God of Israel in the OT??
Well, why not if , when finally cornered, your going to smile, put your hand on my shoulder and say son its a mystery!
It’s a mystery, Bart. Or as Dickens said, “It’s aw a muddle.”
If someone believes that a circle can be squared, then they can believe in anything.
Many religions traces the origin of man, call it,,,yeah,, “whatever”,,,the begotten son,,,,Adam,,,the second Adam,,,the perfect anthopros, Pigera-Adamas, ,,,,,,,,,and “the concept of Unity of being,,,,,and Atman, the perfect devine pattern of man,etc etc,,,, all within the concept of an emanation/extention of the original being,,like a hypostases would fit into an understanding of the devine origin.
If all those images attributed to God, or Yahweh throughout the Bible, like Spirit of God, like wisdom, like the Glory, like Word, like the Son of Man (seems to be a part of Gods being in a way) , the narratives seem to flip flop them between devine (Yahweh) attributes and then another place, suddenly personifie them in some narratives. This seems to occure both OT and even in NT by the apostles and Paul when they credit Jesus related to these devine attributes.
From that perspective, when for example “Wisdom” is personified as a woman in Proverbs, and still is one with Yahweh, it is not that strange for me that Jesus which is attributed to the Son of Man, is of Yahweh and at the same is one with Yahweh.
Interesting question so I asked conservative Christian friends. They actually believe Jesus is YHWH, this took me by surprise. The arguments they used for Jesus being YHWH are, the use of the double vocative, “κύριε κύριε” for Jesus and the application of texts from the Hebrew Bible used about Jesus in the NT. I eagerly await your next post.
So if You say Lord Lord you’re referring to YHWH? Why’s that?
Well, I grew up a Jehovah’s Witness, so obviously with a non-trinitarian doctrine. So I have to admit I don’t fully understand the trinity (does anyone?). But doesn’t orthodox Christian doctrine hold that the God of the OT (Yahweh/Jehovah) is God the Father, and that Jesus is his son? I would have thought that the gospel reports of Jesus’ baptism where the dove appears and says “you are my son” have that meaning. Do they not? In a trinitarian view, where God the Father and Jesus the Son are distinct and yet one person, I would think it follows logically that Yahweh and Jesus are one person. Does it not?
Yes, that’s the typical belief, I believe.
Me too Katharina! But the Trinity doesn’t teach the father and son are one person. Always three persons. One God. So Jehovah is God the Father and Jesus is God the Son.
I grew up a JW too! I was wondering if another ex-JW would surface on this post thread (for obvious reasons). How long have you been out? What made you leave?
Since 1988 when I went to college. I read Crisis of Conscience when I was 15, and that was that lol. But I majored in Religious Studies at Indiana University which also helped. As did Bart’s books obvi. Also I went to U of Chicago for Div school. How about you NHG1980? (And Katharinamacke?)
I was born into a JW family, but I dropped out as a teenager, decades ago. I just couldn’t stand the unctuous talk and the boredom at the Kingdom Hall. How about you?
A bit off-topic, but I wanted to thank you for your pointer toward Jodi Magness’s excellent course “The Holy Land Revealed” (The Great Courses).
The entire course is great, of course, but one topic I’ve been finding especially interesting/useful is the detailed history of the period of the Maccabees/Hasmoneans, which provides much context leading up to NT times. This has been particularly good for someone, like me, for whom the many characters (e.g. Judas/John/Mattahias/Eleazer/[etc] Maccabee; John Hyrcanus; Aristobulus; Antilochus [N]; etc, etc) have always been “just names”.
(And to cite two specific details relevant to the discussions here:
1] I’ve never really appreciated how recently The Galilee had come under Jewish/Jersusalem control, and
2] how the history of the Hasmoneans fed into the animosity that that Essenes at Q’mran felt toward “The Temple”.)
Highly recommend to all my fellow readers of the blog.
Thanks once again.
Margaret Barker suggests something like this. We know that Canaanites worshiped El before Judaism ever existed. El was the father of the gods. Some OT passages seem to remember El as the father of the gods, while Yahweh is one of El’s 70 children. Barker argues that this tradition remained in some form all the way into Christianity, when Yahweh became incarnated as “Yahweh’s Salvation” (which is what “Jesus” means). That would make El Jesus’ father, and Jesus Yahweh on earth.
http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/GreatAngel.htm
“Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels was described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High. In other words, he was described as a heavenly being. Thus the annunciation narrative has the term ‘Son of the Most High’ (Luke 1:32) and the demoniac recognized his exorcist as ‘Son of the Most High God’ (Mark 5:7). Jesus is not called the son of Yahweh nor the son of the Lord, but he is called Lord. We also know that whoever wrote the New Testament translated the name Yahweh by Kyrios, Lord … This suggests that the Gospel writers, in using the terms ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God Most High’, saw Jesus as an angel figure, and gave him their version of the sacred name Yahweh.” Margaret Barker (1992. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, p. 4-5)
Interesting. Do you know where Yahweh is called the son of El Elyon?
The Qumran text for Deuteronomy 32:8-9. “When the El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”
This seems to be in line with the Ugaritic texts which describes the ancient Canaanites Pantheon as a “Council of gods” with El as the father of those gods (hence El Elyon, which means god of the gods). The OT also refers to a council of the gods.
Margaret Barker points to multiple points at which the OT text was tampered with by monotheising religious reformers who wanted to paper over these polytheistic origins.
Thanks. I think that’s usually understood to mean that El Elyon and Yahweh are the same person; the nations got their inheritance and he got his people for his inheritance.
I don’t know. But there are a couple of places indicative of a relatively late exaltation of YHWH to something greater. One of the best examples of taking over the position of Most High is Ex 6: 2-3. Even for the Jews of 400 BCE, it had to be described. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and even Moses himself, did not know who YHWH was. Another interesting text is also Psalm 82. The poem depicts the moment when YHWH took power. There were many gods, they had their own peoples and countries but YHWH took it all over. El Elyon, head of the band, has become redundant.
I grew up Oneness Pentecostal, and while I don’t recall ever hearing “Jesus is Yahweh” explicitly stated, I suspect church leaders would have acceded the point if I tried to nail them down on it, since anything that smacks of Trinitarian beliefs is dismissed with intense prejudice in Oneness churches. While this would have been a one-way ticket to Heretic Town historically, charismatic/Pentecostal denominations are currently the fastest growing corner of Christianity, which I suspect has led to a larger market share for Oneness beliefs like those I grew up hearing each week.
To expand on this point a bit, I do have a distinct memory of being in church once and hearing an extended discussion of how God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost all have one name, which is Jesus. This comes very close to the assertion that Jesus is Yahweh. (I realize I’m describing one small, rather niche corner of Christianity in these responses, but nonetheless it exists.)
I have never heard that Jesus is Yahweh either. I guess you could get there by saying, if Jesus is God, and God in the Hebrew Bible was called Yahweh, then therefore Jesus must equal Yahweh. But if you’re a Christian with low Christology, you’d think Yahweh was God the Father and not Jesus.
And there are plenty of Christians who aren’t Trinitarians at all.. so who gets to be a “standard” Christian?
Justin Martyr thought Jesus was the god in the burning bush who revealed his divine name to Moses.
That’s right. It’s because he is called the “Angel of the Lord” and Justin thought Jesus was that figure.
I think he appears only in the likeness of an angel “to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses”.
The point he’s making is that its not the father speaking from the bush and Jesus is not speaking on the fathers behalf. Jesus speaking from the bush is claiming that he himself is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, and the I Am that I Am.
Also in John 17
“I have manifested your name to those whom you gave me out of the world … Holy Father protect them in your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in the your name that you gave me.” They both share the name Yahweh.
Bart,
I wonder if you could comment on the whole ἐπιούσιος/epiousios issue in the Lord’s Prayer?
I’m sure that most Christians are not aware of the problem, but those who know must realize that either (1) they don’t pray exactly how Jesus told them to do, or, (2) in case they do it in original Greek, they don’t really know what exactly they ask God for. I’m really curious how do believers reconcile that?
Thanks!
Yes, it’s a complicated issue. It appears to mean “give us today our XXX bread” where XXX means either “which we need” or “for today” or “for tomorrow”. The word is not attested before it occurs in Matthew and Luke, so it was, I suppose, invented by Q. What do Christians do about it? They either don’t know there’s a problem (99.99% of them) or they come up with the trandlationthat makes the best sense.
All God wanted with the Second Commandment was “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”. The interpretation of this by the people of that time, amongst a Henotheistic milieu, would have been very different to how we interpret it today.
If Jesus, as the Son of God, is also Yahweh, then why isn’t the Father also Jesus?
In the Old Testament, Yahweh is referred to as ‘Almighty God’. Jesus isn’t referenced as the ‘Almighty’ nor can he be, as the Almighty cannot be anointed.
Right. Clearly the Father isn’t Jesus, since Jesus prays to the Father, and he ain’t talkin’ to himself….
In Mark 10:18 Jesus appears to differentiate himself from the Hebrew God by saying , “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” I wonder if that verse has caused issues for trinitarians? It’s interesting that it appears in the earliest Gospel but not the later ones (definitely not John)…
Yup, Matthew changes it: “why do you ask me about what is good”….
Not a single Christian would admit that it was Jesus (=YHWH) who ordered his Annointed Saul (or Saul Christ) in 1Samuel 15:3 to carry out ruthless genocide against some poor Amalekites (including many children and infants) whose ancestors some 300 year earlier had attacked the generation of Israelites who worshipped the golden calf.
I know some who would!!
Sorry to race ahead, Dr Ehrman, as I am sure you will get to this topic in your Trinity thread, but there was an interesting discussion on British (BBC) radio yesterday about Arianism. What surprised me was that (it was claimed) recent surveys had shown that many mainstream ‘orthodox’ Christians, on both sides of the Atlantic, hold views very close to Arianism. That is they see Christ as in some way subordinate to God the father and/or as having been created by him. This suggests an appalling ignorance among modern Christians of the Nicene Creed in particular and of Christology in general.
Yup, that’s been my experience by a wide margin as well….
I’m on the edge of my seat, here. I recently watched that debate with Justin Bass and I’ll admit I was perplexed by how perplexed Bart was at that statement. For 30+ years in evangelical churches I’ve heard that Jesus is Yahweh and never gave it a second thought. Yahweh is the god of the OT, Jesus is the son of the god of the OT and claims (in John) the “I Am” name; the doctrine of the Trinity says there’s a singular divine being manifest in 3 facets or functions, so yeah, of course Jesus is Yahweh. So is the Father, so is the Holy Spirit. Everybody’s Yahweh!
(I’m not saying I believe this now, just that this is how the thinking has gone in my church experiences)
So how does the OT say that YHWH said to My Lord, sit at my right hand….??? (If it’s not the Father speaking to the Son?)
In my experience there’s not a lot of deep thought involved even from pastors who went to some sort of college or divinity school. The answer would probably be some combination of metaphor/symbolism/mystery of the Trinity. The same way that Jesus can be seated on the right hand of the Father, being manifest in two persons even though they’re one being. After all, who are we to try to understand the creator of the universe?
YHWH seems, in any case to have begun life as a tribal god. Warnings to have “no other gods before me” seems to be a tacit admission on the part of YHWH that other gods exist, but this one claims to be bigger and better than all the others– a special deity choosing a particular group of people. And even when YHWH was morphed by humans into the ONE god, other divine or supernatural beings were acknowledged, and still are acknowledged. Angels, for instance. To split hairs, Jesus can’t be YHWH because Jesus has a particular history that begins in time: before incarnation and life on earth, and after incarnation and life on earth. Supposing that YHWH has precisely the same history leads to the absurdity of the father begetting himself. It just doesn’t gel, no matter how you parse the issues. Exaltation theology is simpler by far than the stuff the trinitarians got into. They really backed themselves into a corner, and they’ve been stuck there ever since.
Since the early 1900s, Mormons have understood Jesus as “Jehovah,” God of the Old Testament, stemming from a 1916 doctrinal exposition by Mormon leaders called “The Father and the Son.” Because Mormons in the 19th century evidently did *not* hold this view, it represents a later development.
Interested in your next post.
I was also taught El was god the Father and Jesus was Jehovah, god the Son. Two separate, distinct beings.
“In the beginning (that’s all one word in Hebrew), God (Elohim, plural subject) created (singular verb).”
Could it be “In the beginning GodS created” like we say “A man built a house” or “Men built a house”? Same verb. Could the various names for God have been for more than one God?
In English the past tense “built” can take either a singular or plural subject (notice: the present tense “build” does not). In Hebrew “created” is spelled differently if the subject is singular or plural. Here it is spelled in the singular form even though ELOHIM is, technically, plural.
As a Catholic, I can’t recall Jesus as ever been called Yahweh…always imagined Yahweh as the Father in the OT. But come to think of it, I can’t recall ever been specifically *told* Yahweh was the Father! But it makes sense: If Yahweh=Father and Father=God and Jesus=God, then Jesus=Yahweh! But per the doctrine of the Trinity, then the Holy Spirit=Yahweh as well!
I have recently read that Jesus was the LORD in the Eden event. Also I’ve read that when the LORD spoke in the OT , it was the Holy Spirit “talking”!
In Mormonism, “Jehovah” is thought to be the name by which Jesus was known prior to his birth; references to “the LORD” in the KJV Old Testament are therefore understood to be references to the pre-mortal Jesus, whereas God the Father, who is regarded as a separate individual, is sometimes referred to as “Elohim”. “Jehovah” is twice rendered in the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 22:2 and Moroni 10:34.
Hey Bart, hope you are well! My question is if you have heard about this “chain of custody” for the New Testament argument and what your thoughts are on it? It goes something like this “ Irenaeus reports in his letter (Letter to Florinus) that he received the teachings of John from Polycarp and that Polycarp related to him that he was a student of the apostles specifically, the Apostle John”
Thanks Professor
Also I see my silver membership is only limited to 3 comments, would this go up with a gold?
Yes, I am familiar with it. I think there are reasons for thinking that Irenaeus cannot be right. For one thing, if Polycarp was really John’s student, why does he never quote John in his letter (where he does quote the other Gospels).
Comments: yes, the limit is three on every level. There are some other serious perks for being gold though!
Dr. Ehrman,
Richard B. Hays from Duke University has argued that the intertextual allusions and echoes to the Jewish scriptures in the four gospels present Jesus as the embodiment of Yahweh. For example, Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in Luke 13:34 where he says “How often I have desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings…” is an allusion to texts like Deut. 32:10-12 and Psalm 91:1-4a in which Yahweh is depicted metaphorically as a bird sheltering Israel under its wings. He also points out that in Luke’s narrative, Jesus had not been to Jerusalem, yet he laments the fact that he had “often desired” to gather them and they were unwilling. Another example would be the disciples’ leading question in Mark 4:41, to which there is only one right answer, according to the Hebrew Bible: Psalm 107:23-29. Thoughts on this?
Does Richard think Jesus is actually Yahweh himself? I had no idea (I”ve known him for years!) As to this specific argument, I think it’s always tricky to take a NT reference to an OT passage, then interpret that OT passage, and then say that the NT author understood that interpretation and that he had it in mind. Jesus certainly takes on the authority of YHWH and acts in his name and does many of the things YHWH does. But that doesn’t make him YHWH.
I know he is an ordained Methodist minister, so if I had to guess, I would say he probably is personally convinced by the fourfold gospel witness regarding Jesus’ identity. Either way, I think his work on biblical intertextuality is fantastic.
It’s interesting to note that Paul uses the Septuagint translation for Yahweh (Kyrios) to refer to Jesus, and for El (Theos) to refer to Jesus’ heavenly father.
I’ve read several scholars who contend that Yahweh was the son of El in the Canaanite pantheon. Later, as the Israelites merged El and some of his sons like Yahweh and Ba’al together to become the god called God / Yahweh / Elohim, the Israelites continued to worship Asherah (El’s wife) as the consort of Yahweh.
Are you familiar with these claims? Do you find any of these claims convincing?
NO, I don’t think I am. I don’t recall Yahweh as part of the Canaanite pantheon. What Canaanite texts are they referring to?
Most of the stuff I’ve read references the texts found at Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra) in northern
Syria.
Example of a paper I read…
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=studiaantiqua
I THINK there are at least two instances in the Hebrew Bible in which the term ‘elohim exists with a plural verb. One is Exodus 22:
“In any case of disputed ownership involving ox, donkey, sheep, clothing, or any other loss, of which one party says, “This is mine,” the case of both parties shall come before God; the one whom God condemns shall pay double to the other.”
Exodus 22:9 NRSV
The other in Genesis 20:
“And when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her, ‘This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother.’ ””
Genesis 20:13 NRSV
I THINK in both these instances ‘elohim is used with a plural verb. The Jews of the 2nd temple period might have said in the exodus passage that the word ‘elohim meant like earthly judges, similar to the way Jesus reapplies Ps. 82 in John 10.
The second is more problematic. Why is Abraham, saintly father of monotheism, acknowledging a plurality of gods? And better yet, why do the NRSV translators shield this from us?
How do you feel these passages should have been rendered?
The authors felt free to use either plural or singular verbs with Elohim, without changing its meaning. (An analogy: if you call the Holy Spirit “him” or “it” you still are referring to the same entity, presumably)
Is there a debate among scholars on the matter of Elohim with a plural verb?
Ive done some digging. Dr, E, i THINK it might be that the use of a plural verb in conjunction with elohim reflects ancient near-eastern henotheism, which the pre-exilic Israelites and Judahites were certainly in that camp. I worry that translators today try to shield us from this sort of thing, even my beloved NRSV at times. I am by no means a Hebrew reader, but i am told by a university professor at Oklahoma Christian University that for example: Ps 58:1 “Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods (heb lit ‘elem) has misappropriated vowel markings, by the Masorites. It should rather be heb lit “‘elim”. Then book end it with the last verse that possibly should be rendered “indeed there are gods (elohim) judging on the earth.” Apparently the Hebrew is early here. The same instructor feels there is never a reason to render “elohim” as judges/rulers in the Hebrew bible.
Do you feel some scholars read too much into the plural verb when attached to elohim? Thank you as always for your help 🙂
I”m not an expert on that; but I would say that to indicate the Masoretes made a mistake requires some evidence rather than the fact that there is an alternative to what they did.
El Shaddai (God Almighty)??? – it is helleniscic and later medieval mistake based on Aristotelian thought that God has to be a simple unmoved mover and thereby eternal omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent. Those are terms that don’t exist in biblical or in rabbinical Hebrew. I apologize for the way the philosophers and Marcion kidnapped the traditions but it’s not in the Torah, there is no Hebrew word for omnipotent meaning all powerful and the concept is a nonsense concept from original Jewish perspective.
To be honest, that Justin Bass debate was one of the few times I’ve ever really felt disappointed in you. Neither of you came out of that debate squeaky clean, Justin because of his frequent breaches of etiquette (speaking out of turn, etc), and you because of your contemptuous expression. Actually, I have always understood that Christians identify Jesus with Yahweh — including when I was one — not least because when John has Jesus say “before there was an Abraham I AM”, the subtext is surely “I am the I AM”. I do not mean to imply that Christians identify Yahweh _specifically_ with the Son, but rather, as the personal name of the entire Godhead, Son included. I am aware that some thinkers down the ages have identified different Old Testament names of God with different members of the Trinity, but I never understood that to be mainstream Christian theology. Looking forward to your sequel.
Emanuel Swedenborg actually thought Jesus is Yahweh. He believed in the trinity, but thought Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united in the one person of Jesus.
In the context of Elohim vs Yahweh, what are your thoughts about the documentary hypothesis of the OT? Have you by any chance written a blog on this topic?
Yup. Just recently, in fact: https://ehrmanblog.org/what-are-the-sources-of-the-hebrew-bible/
Thank you.
I am coming into this discussion a bit late it seems. I was brought up high church (Lutheran) and did learn the theological principles of high church Christianity. I even attended a top-100 arts and sciences college which is supported by it; however, I ceased to believe its dogmas and mythologies while I was still a child. I am not a believer in any Abrahamic religion. I was a history major who concentrated in the ancient period. Now, I mean ANCIENT. I do not believe for One nanosecond that the peoples who became the Judeans, Israelis, Hebrews etc. were originally and only monotheists. The stories in the Tanach show this. There was serious fighting by a group who wished to push through, for the Hebrews, the singular worship of one divinity. This divinity”s YHWH name has been postulated to several sources, one being a storm god over a range of mountains in northern Arabia. I do not knock religious experience. I just agree with the Greek philosophers that monism/monotheism is a very slippery slope.
1h 13 min in is where you start talking about jesus as yhwh. 😇
The first time I heard Jesus is Yahweh was in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles about 30 years ago or so. I’ve never heard a scholar say that. I saw the debate with Justin Bass but may need to go back and watch it again.
Right! In the NT, it is clearly his body that goes up. Modern people understandably have a problem with that, since in our world, technically, there *is* no “up” and God certainly is not “up there.” Hence the pope’s comment.
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”[b]
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
what do you think about this passage? Isaiah saw Yahweh’s glory and john is saying the same thing about jesus?
Also romans 10:13 ”for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” compares jesus to yahweh Joel 2:32 “And whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered and saved,”
My view is that the kind of historical interpretation that we give to passages quoted by NT authors is not necessarily the interpretaiotn that the NT authors themselves had.
How do you respond to the claim’s of James White on YouTube that he challenged you to a debate about whether the NT authors thought Jesus is Yahweh or not but you refused unless you get the full media rights?
The full media rights? It’s news to me. I’m not sure I even know what that means. Why don’t you ask him if he has proof. If he has proof, then I have a very faulty memory!
Not only Romans 10:13 but also Acts 2:21.
Do you think that Justin Martyr called Jesus Yahweh here?:
Justin Martyr (~100-165), in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, wrote ,
…now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts…
He called him Lord of hosts, that is Yahweh’s name
Jesus is often portrayed as the head of the army of heavenly angels (already in the book of Revelation), that is, the “heavenly host.” But that doesn’t make him Yahweh for these authors.
Do you think That the word “Theos” was used for the father mostly while the word “Kurias” was used for Jesus is significant in identifying them as separate beings?
For example, the word “Theos” occurs 1,315 times in the Greek NT primarily as a title for God the Father according to Murray Harris who believes that of the 15 possible uses of Theos as a title for Christ only 7 are actually so used. He thinks that “Theos” is definitely used of Christ in John 1:1, and 20:28, very probably in Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, Heb 1:8, and 2 Pet 1:1,
Paul is known for starting his epistles with some version of the phrase, “Grace and peace to you from God (theos) our Father and from the Lord (kyrios) Jesus Christ (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2, etc.).” In these phrases, Paul consistently connects theos (which LXX translators used to render the Hebrew word Elohim) with “our Father” and kyrios with “Jesus Christ”. In fact, this correlation is so consistent, we find that Paul never identifies “the Father” as kyrios, but only as theos; whereas Paul always identifies Jesus as kyrios and never theos?
It’s debated whether Paul uses theos of Christ in Romans 9:5. It depends on how the sentence (in Greek) is punctuated. BUt otherwise he uses kurios.
That is pretty significant. If Paul never calls Jesus Theos that means he was careful not to confuse his identity with the father. This is enough evidence that Paul thought that they were two separate beings. I wonder why this point is not getting enough attention. But do you think that other authors of the NT called Jesus theos? like the author of Titus 2:13, and 2Peter 1:1. if so, does it mean that other authors mixes Jesus’s identity with the father?
No one mixed his identity with the father. But virtually every NT author considers Jesus God in *some* sense, and books like John do speak of Christ as God (e.g., John 1:1; 20:28); Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 are debatable in terms of translation and meaning.
Some scriptures in Revelation refer to Michael and his angels other scriptures refer to Christ and his angels.
Synonymous. Parallel accounts
YHWH isn’t Jesus. They’re two seperate persons. YHWH created the heavenly prehuman being, before all other creation, that later came to earth as Jesus.
Arius was a true Christian but was rejected by worldly political and religious powers.
Christ was also rejected by those whom viewed him as false.
Bible says Satan is god of this world.
Revelation 12 says Satan has deceived the whole world. This includes all members of almost all religions
What about:” If you have seen me, you have seen the father,” … “I and my father are one,” “ before Abraham was, I am…”. I don’t believe the NT story anymore, it just seems like Jesus does claim to be god.
Yes, he does make divine claims for himself in John. Absolutely! But he is claiming to be *equal* with Yahweh, not to be *identical* with him. Big difference. Otherwise when he prayed in John 17, he’d be talking to himself…. He clearly differentiates himself from the Father, even while claiming some level of equality with him.