(4 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...Let’s look at Paul’s view of Jesus as an Angel. Here’s a bit from chapter 7 of How Jesus Became God where I talk about why I think Paul understood Jesus, before coming to earth, to have been an angel. There’s more to the argument than just this, but it’s a start. As you’ll see, this isn’t just a crazy idea I had. I learned this from some very smart colleagues in the field, who have convinced me. It’s one of the HUGE surprises that I’ve had writing this book, coming to this realization. It affects a LOT in terms of New Testament interpretation.
Did Paul Think Jesus was an Angel?
Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something numerous times, over and over, and not having it register. I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians literally hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what Paul says in Galatians 4:14 simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago.
In this verse, Paul indicates that Christ was an angel. The reason it never registered with me is that the statement is a bit obtuse, and I had always interpreted it in an alternative way. But thanks to the work of other scholars, I now see the error of my ways.
In the context of the verse, Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst, and they helped restore him to health. This is what the verse in question says:
Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
The epistle to the Hebrews presented a detailed argument that Christ was greater than the angels. Do you think the author was reacting against and correcting an earlier angelic christology, such as the one held by Paul? If not, why was it even necessary to make this argument?
As the same Greek word is used to denote “messenger” and “angel”, how do we tell which is most appropriate in specific instances?
Is it possible in some instances when Paul refers to Jesus as an “angel”, he was referring in generic terms that Jesus was the unique son sent from God, without any angelic connotations?
Yes, I think you’re right about Hebrews. And yes, same Greek word: that’s what angels were — messengers of God. I can’t think off hand (I’m on the road) of an instance where aggelos gets used of a non-heavenly being in the NT. I’ll look it up when I get home.
The messengers of John the Baptist in Luke 7 are probably the best example.
Ah, right! But they are messengers from John, not messengers/angels from God….
There’s not many instances. In Q and Mark, the OT ‘messenger’ is applied to John the Baptizer. Luke 7,24 for the messengers from John. In Luke 9,52, Jesus sends messengers ahead of him. James 2,25 for Joshua’s spies.
There’s a few cases that could be ambiguous, but the great majority are references to angles.
Ah, yes! But these are not an “angel of God” (they are an angel/messenger of John)
Only Q 7,27 & Mk 1,2 speak of God’s messenger/angel from the Jewisch scriptural citation as applied to John the Baptizer. Q 7,24 are messengers from John.
Professor Ehrman,
Do you think this view of Jesus as an angel has anything to do with the condemnation of angel worship in the letter to the Colossians?
No, I think the reverse: the later condemnation of worship of angels led Christians away from the idea that Jesus had been one.
You make reference to your idea of Jesus being an Angel in Paul’s writing as a crazy idea that is not a crazy idea. It is one on many you have presented about how Jesus is God, some less crazier than others. Just the notion of a finite human becoming an infinite God is crazy enough but that is the formal belief of orthodox Christian…fully God and Fully man.
I often post short essays on these topics on Facebook from a Progressive Christian position, and I tend to take the position that Jesus was fully man…period….not God at all.
Even doing this, some of my Facebook readers and friends refer to the Bible as fairy tales and there is no reason to even believe in God at all to show love and compassion. They have a point.
I am going to take a chance here and post the essay I posted to two Facebook groups. One of the comments referred to the belief in fairy tales, even though I was being very progressive in my position.
*** Bart….feel free to remove it if you think it is too long or inappropriate here. I was surprised that one of the responses accused me of believing in “crazy fairy tales”***
Facebook Posting:
“A Progressive Christian’s View of the Holy Bible and an Understanding of God’s Purpose for Our Lives Today.”
(This is a “personal statement of my faith” and I welcome comments and constructive suggestions)
What we call the Holy Bible, containing selected writings of the Jewish and Christian religions, is a document that was written well over 2000 years ago (possibly back to 4000+ BCE in both oral and written forms) in various ancient languages, among them Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek containing myths, legends, stories of family life in the Hebrew tribes, laws to help control their people, poems, songs, prophesies, histories of wars and kings and rulers, conquests, often containing considerable brutality and slaughter of the Hebrew’s enemies. This group of people are called by many names including Hebrews, Israelites (from the name Israel), and Jews (derived from the name (Judah).
It was written, to begin with, by a small band of nomads living in what is now Iraq and provides a description about their understanding of their tribal God (named YAHWEH) and what this God intended for it’s people. Over many centuries these ideas grew and expanded and became more sophisticated culminating in the story of one Jewish man named Jesus who proclaimed the coming of God to establish a kingdom on earth filled with peace and harmony.
Even though this Kingdom of God did not come to us in a physical sense, I believe that it did come, within us, and it is our purpose to communicate this Kingdom to our neighbors through our love and compassion.
When we read the Holy Bible, we are reading the story of these people as they wrote it. We are reading a very ancient document and when we read it we must do so by understanding the context and world view within which it was written. Not all of the contents apply to us today and there are many contradictions and discrepancies and many laws and commandments and practices which simply don’t fit in our modern society or which are cruel and inhumane.
In general, Progressive Christians do not believe that the Holy Bible contains the actual exact words of God or His commandments coming directly from His Mind. Rather, the Holy Bible is a document from which we can better understand how these people understood God in various ways, and by reading it we can hear the Mind of God within our spirit speaking to us today. I also acknowledge the truth contained in other Spirit documents in many cultures and religions that also guide us in the ways of love and compassion.
Humans can not prove God’s existance through reason and science, but we believe that God (the infinite source of all that is) speaks to us through his Spirit to our spirits in many ways, and that all humanity is loved by God and is equal in His sight, wherever we are on the path to understanding His reality in the cosmos.
Many of us also believe that God is still speaking to us now, through our spirits, through the events in history, through the power of our minds and the power of reason which God gives us.
We believe in God by faith (trust) who, through the teachings of Jesus, requires us to love our neighbors as ourselves and that we practice this love in the betterment of humankind unconditionally to build a loving and compassionate society through the power of God in our lives to transform us and our world.
I sincerely believe that there are those among other religious faiths who are also truly God touched and who also are dedicated to giving love and compassion to our fellow beings.
We are, of course, finite beings and we can not do this perfectly and, when we fall, we say that we have sinned. Sin is an ancient way of saying that we are not perfect and that we make mistakes…often very huge mistakes. God loves us none-the-less.
The goal of the Christian faith is not to get a “ticket to Heaven” but to live now as though we are already in Heaven.
We are called to be an instrument of God’s peace through love, compassion, and social justice to the very best of our ability.
Beautifully stated! I couldn’t agree more.
Jesus as an angel , it seems to me, would place a great deal of pressure on Christians to reinterpret their theology especially the trinitarian concept. Do you see this as an issue?
Yup, it’s something I deal with in the book….
Thanks for explaining the Greek of Gal 4:14. When you first brought it up a couple months ago I said that it didn’t sound like Paul was calling Jesus an angel, but you didn’t really answer my questioning of it 🙂 It makes sense now, but I can’t see many Christians buying it if Paul only used the but as…as phrase a couple of other times. They’ll just tell themselves that two known uses of a sentence construct doesn’t prove anything.
At any rate, I just read 2 Cor 2:17 and to me it reads more strangely than the Galatians verse: “but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” (KJV– other versions are fairly similar in wording). Is he saying God is sincerity/sincere (ie., not corrupting his Word)?
Yes, if a text says what you don’t want it to say, simply point out that it’s only one text! 🙂
Sorry, I’m on the road just now and can’t check the Greek text of 2 Cor. 2:17….
2 Cor 2:17
“but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.” (NRSV)
In this translation the second phrase repeating yet refining the first is more plausible.
Yes — but it is not *contrasting* with the first statement, which is my point. They are the same persons, not different ones or different kinds of ones. So Christ is an angel, but a certain kind (probably “the” Angel of the Lord)
Sorry, I was respoding to gmatthews.
Mind blown.
I’m open to interpreting Paul as saying Jesus was an angel, but I can hear some saying that it can be interpreted also as indicating Paul was thankful his readers received him as Jesus “received” him.
Do you talk about in the book the various meanings of “angel.” Can those who take a different interpretation argue it can refer to a be a human non-divine messenger of god here? That it refers to an divine angel might be supported by his reference in Gal 1:8 to an “angel from heaven.”
I can’t think off hand (I’m on the road) of an instance where aggelos of God gets used of a non-heavenly being in the NT. I’ll look it up when I get home.
Well, this certainly answers a question from you Facebook page I saw earlier today. Bart, you have really made me want to go back to school and become a textual critic. Unfortunately, I’m 51 years old, and putting my own children through college. Besides that, I have a mortgage to pay and life calls on me to learn other things every day about my own profession. Still, I’m very tempted. I sorely want to understand more about the ancient texts and piece together a solid understanding of what the original texts really said.
I find this desire increasingly important, because I get the impression that many modern believers live under the delusion that the ancients thought as we do today. They seem to think that our understanding of the scriptures was the understanding of the ancients, and some of them vociferously defend that point of view. Worse yet, politicians are making policies based on these misguided interpretations of the Bible. Just today, Joe Barton said that God introduced climate change during the great flood in Genesis.
I am thankful for your work, but there are way more of them than there are of people like you. You are right to say that more pastors should teach what they learned during seminary and give people a proper balance. I’ve read several of your books, and I try to share what I’ve learned, but I have to admit that it’s not always well received. Still, I want to arrive at the truth, and that is not an easy thing to reconstruct or share once you find it. Thank you for having the courage to take on this important work.
“As the Angel of the Lord, Christ is a pre-existent being who is divine; he can be called God”
Prof Erhman this seems a big leap. it seems abnormal that an angel can be compared to or seen on the same level/magnitude as Yahweh/God
Ah — I deal with that in my book!!
This may sound too simple minded so do not feel compelled to answer. The thing is, if Jesus was an Angel to Paul (and I guess that is only as far as he was concerned), I do not recall anywhere in the Bible or elsewhere in other gospels written under fradulent names that angels were ever born into the world. They just seemed to appear with a message and then disappear.
Yes, I argue in my chapter that for Paul Jesus was an angel who became human. But so too did angels in the OT. But Jesus was actually *born*, which made him unique….
Actually, almost all of your 300 or so blogs have contained original material so my guess is that original material will keep flowing from this blog for quite some time. Today’s blog, however, is considerably more complicated than your usual blogs so I will reread it from time to time. One of the better things about you is that you keep tweaking and modifying your ideas as you learn more and more.
I don’t know Greek at all, so I’m wondering if there is a remote chance that the word aggelos in Gal 4.14 could have implied “messenger” rather than angel or even possibly an aggos. Is reference to either messenger or vessel instead of angel totally impossible in this verse?
Yes, same Greek word: that’s what angels were — messengers of God. I can’t think off hand (I’m on the road) of an instance where aggelos gets used of a non-heavenly being in the NT. I’ll look it up when I get home.
But…doesn’t “angel” literally mean something like “messenger”? (Which would not necessarily imply divinity?) I realize, of course, that it wouldn’t be used for a very mundane type of “messenger.”
Yes, same Greek word: that’s what angels were — messengers of God. I can’t think off hand (I’m on the road) of an instance where aggelos gets used of a non-heavenly being in the NT. I’ll look it up when I get home.
Hi again 🙂 You wrote: “Paul says in Galatians 4:14 …. that Christ was an angel.” OK, I can see why you think Saul-Paul might have thought that Jesus was an angel, especially if (in his Judaism-influenced thinking) he regarded the Christ (Messiah) for whom he mistook Jesus of Nazareth to be as the lord of all angels.
Robinson apparently agreed with you that “Christ was an angel” when he penned: “[n]ot a mere ‘messenger’ of God, but a very angel, even as Christ Jesus” (Robinson, Word Pictures in the New Testament at Gal. 4:14). Nonetheless, I respectfully─and other widely consulted (albeit pro-Orthodox) commentators─disagree with your premise that Paul might have believed that Jesus was an “angel” in some supernatural sense.
▪ “… the Galatians … received him heartily, even as an angel of God, God’s messenger” (B. W. Johnson, People’s NT);
▪ ” … [w]ith even higher honor than an angel” (Vincent’s Word Studies citing Matt. 10:40; John 13:20);
▪ “… they received [him] as they would have received the Saviour himself” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, also citing Matt. 10:40)
▪ “…, they received him as an angel of God – as a messenger from heaven, and as Jesus Christ himself. This appears to me to be the simple meaning of [ως αγγελον θεου … ως χριστον ιησουν]” (Clarke, Commentary on the Bible), and
▪ “as an angel of God — as a heaven-inspired and sent messenger from God:…. as Christ — being Christ’s representative” (JFB, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, citing Mal. 2:7; Matt. 10:40).
I am, however, virtually dog-earring this blog page for further personal research. Regrettably, I can locate only one online comment by Metzger on this verse:
“Later Christian theology tended to see the preincarnate Christ in this figure …, but the phrase probably referred vaguely to any mediator sent by God” (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100605072759AAiC7Dh, citing Oxford Companion to the Bible article with Michael Coogan).
And, alas, I don’t have in my personal library any other comment by Metzger on Gal. 4:14. Would you please briefly share what else he did or might have said about that verse?
I”m afraid I don’t know what Metzger thought of this. But yes, most NT scholars have missed this. But look for yourself!
Hello again, Dr. Ehrman 🙂
You wrote: “By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.” Yes, that appears to be an implication one might deduce from the Greek phrase ως αγγελον θεου … ως χριστον ιησουν. But for me to believe the notion that Paul believed that Jesus, Messiah or not, was a supernatural angel, then wouldn’t I first need to believe the notion that such supernatural enties exist? And if I were to believe that Jesus, messiah or not, “is an angel,” how do I know that Jesus wasn’t, instead, an extraterrestrial biological entity (EBE) as Orthodox Christians and ancient astronaut theorists apparently believe?
Granted, I’m not qualified to say with any certainty that angels do NOT exist. Yet I can say, based on my personal knowledge of the adaptatation and evolution of angelology into the Orthodox Christian system of theology, and from my own varied and sometimes hazardous life experiences that, if they do, I’ve never (to the best of my knowledge, belief, and understanding) met one.
Respects!
Yes, you would have to believe that. And ancient Jews did!
Bart, I get your argument that Paul says Jesus is an angel. But where does it say that Jesus was an angel before he was born on Earth?
Ah, you need to read my book! If Paul had an incarnation theology, and thought Christ had been an angel — there it is!
which book?
How Jesus Became God.
i feel like a goose. i read an earlier post and you clearly say which book there. sorry bout that
Another interesting insight! And that’s what I love about the Bible, it’s like a huge puzzle and treasure trove. You can always find (out) new things.
After sleeping on it, I would like to make a comment about Paul seeing Jesus as being an “angel.” On the one hand, it is a very intriguing and creative interpretation. On the other hand, since the Bible has so many authorship, textual, historical, translation, social context, and other problems, I am always very slow, cautious, and skeptical , as I know you are, about placing a lot of emphasis on a phrase or sentence or two of scripture. Is there something about this scripture which makes it more reliable than most scripture other than it being written earlier than most scripture?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Do you mean Paul may not have meant it in this place?
Unfortunately, I did not express my point very well. For a variety of reasons, it is difficult for me to take a lot of the Bible as being reliable and historical. So why should I consider Galatians 4:14 as being a reliable expression of Paul’s ideas?
When the Bible is said to be “unreliable” it is usually in reference to what it says about the activities / views of people that it is talking *about*. Gal. 4:14 is not about what Paul was talking *about*. It is Paul talking. That’s the dif!
Aha! I see your point about the Bible being more reliable when Paul is saying something than when the Biblical authors write about the activities and views of people. Since, like you, I have spent considerable time in a Biblical inerrancy subculture where people, with much dogmatic certainty, draw conclusions, about women, gays, and etc., from a sentence or two attributed to Paul, I am afraid that I have an immediate, negative gut reaction to someone quoting a sentence or two attributed to Paul to prove this or that. It reminds me too much of proof texting. So, I am intrigued by your idea that Paul viewed Jesus as being an angel, but am not yet convinced. On the other hand, I am not convinced about much of anything except the importance of the critical examination of crucial questions. Since we are talking about “incarnation” theology, I assume your contention is that Paul thought Jesus was an angel prior to His birth and then was incarnated as a human and returned to being an angel after His Resurrection. I am not a theologian, but I think you are going to need considerably more evidence to sell this view. For example, why didn’t Paul develop this idea more thoroughly in Galatians and in his other epistles?
Mainly because he was not trying to provide a systematic exposition of his Christology in any of his letters; it is assumed, rather than explicated.
Professor Ehrman, repetition helps the understanding. Please proceed. And I’ll buy your book anyway.
So how does this square with the “born of a woman” passage in Galations 4 or the “traced human ancestry of the Messiah” passage in Romans 9 and the “descended from the seed of David and was declared to be the Son of God” in Romans 1? Or will we have to wait for your book to read pp. xxx?
I’ll deal with some of that on the blog, and all of it in the book!
Are we talking angel as in halo and feathery wings like Michael or more like a generic heavenly being?
what would a generic heavenly being be? (Michael doesn’t have feathers and a halo!)
What WERE Angels to people like Paul, anyway? Were they non-corporeal “spirits” or were they anthropomorphic messengers from Yahweh?
Yes and yes. Well, they weren’t non-corporeal; they did have bodies. And on earth they had human bodies.
Huh. Interesting. I don’t get how beings that have bodies can exist outside of space, but I guess the ancients hadn’t really thought that through.
Did Yahweh have a body for people like Jesus and Paul? I’m a little confused as to what the NT even means by “god” at times: God is love, God is a spirit, God’s gonna resurrect everybody with immortal spirit bodies, etc. Sometimes he sounds like an abstract concept, other times he’s an all powerful space magician.
For some authors he did (e.g., Isaiah 6)
Yes, PLEASE do post again on the Philippians poem – I don’t think it will be repetitive, as you’re coming at it from a different perspective now.
On a barely related note, I have a somewhat pressing question about the first phrase of 1 Peter 3:15, which is translated
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts” in the KJV
“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy” in the ESV
“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord” in the NIV
These are all significantly different, and when I went back to the Greek, it seems that the Textus Receptus doesn’t say anything about “Christ”, while the Septuagint/Westcott-Hort does. Can you clarify what the original phrasing was and why the discrepancy?
Thanks very much
I”m on the road just now and nowhere near my books, but if I recall the difference here is indeed that the TR reads THEOS (God) and the best manuscripts read, instead, CHRISTOS (Christ)
Correct.
I move that, one day in the hopefully distant future when you pass on, you donate your brain to science for analysis similar to that performed on Einstein’s brain 😀
I”m afraid dissection of my brain would reveal an undifferentiated bunch of grey muck….
Ah, I see that Gieschen had an unrelated article in Hurtado’s Festschrift. Haven’t read his Angelomorphic Christology, but imagine it must be very interesting.
Bart, you wrote:
“If that’s the case, then virtually everything Paul ever says about Christ throughout his letters makes perfect sense. As the Angel of the Lord, Christ is a pre-existent being who is divine; he can be called God; and he is God’s manifestation on earth in human flesh.”
I think you are right about Paul’s Christ being a pre-existent Angel who is divine. But there is still a big problem with this scenario: Paul’s omission of virtually everything this wonderful divine manifestation taught and did on earth! Surely every word this Angel of the Lord spoke and every single thing he did on earth would have been unbelievably precious and worthy of loud and repeated proclamation by his apostle Paul.
Unless, that is ……………. the Son originally had no public ministry! As you may recall, I am the oddball who thinks the high Pauline Christology may reflect an originally quite limited story about the descent of the Son of God for a few hours, just long enough for him to transform himself and surreptitiously switch places with a failed Jewish messiah who was being led out for crucifixion by the Romans. After thus tricking the powers that be into wrongfully crucifying him, he visited Hades to empty it, and then triumphantly rose back to his Father in heaven. His task was short and sweet, much like the tasks given to other heavenly figures who were believed to have previously descended to this world (e.g., the Genesis angels who visited Abraham and Lot disguised as angels; the incognito archangel Raphael in the book of Tobit.)
In this scenario, the transition to a low Christology would have occurred when someone —the author of GMark— came up with the idea of giving the Son a public ministry. But why add a public ministry? My answer: Because someone was going around claiming to be a new manifestation of the Son. That someone was “Paul” (/Simon of Samaria?) whom the Galatians received *as* an angel of God, *as* Jesus Christ. Paul was Simon of Samaria for some Christians and, according to Irenaeus, Simon of Samaria claimed to be “the Son who suffered in Judaea.” Thus, the public ministry that GMark provided could be an allegorical version of the ministry of Paul/Simon. (I should note that Paul Nadim Tarazi has proposed a partially similar scenario for GMark. Tarazi writes: “So Mark decided to create a ‘story of Jesus’ … but what will have been the source for the overall outline of that story?… it followed the major contours of Paul’s life and activity as an apostle. … Mark has created a similar mixture in his gospel; the life of Jesus is here reminiscent of the New Testament ‘prophet’ Paul. … the image of Paul shows through in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus…” – “The New Testament: An Introduction – Paul and Mark,” pp. 126-129.)
As I see it, this would explain how the Christology went from “high” in Paul’s letters to “low” in GMark. The joining together of the original high incarnational Christology of the crucified Son with the lower exaltational Christology of his subsequent manifestation in Paul/Simon had the overall effect of lowering the Christology.
The problem is that Paul thought Jesus was a living, breathing human being who was born, had brothers, and twelve disciples, and who ministered to Jews, and had a last supper, and who taught, and so on. I discuss all this in Did Jesus Exist.
Bart,
I have read “Did Jesus Exist?” but am not convinced. For I expect that when the letters of Simon and his followers were converted by the proto-orthodox into letters of “Paul” there would have been some sanitizing touch-ups made. You seem to largely disallow interpolations in the ten earliest Paulines. You acknowledge that “What is most interesting of all, the vast majority of these apostolic books were in fact forged” (“Forged,” p. 218). And that “In every early Christian community believers attacked other believers for their false beliefs… Nothing generated more literary forgeries in the names of apostles than the internal conflicts among competing Christian groups” (p. 182 & 183). But you seem to want to make an exception for the earliest ten Paulines. These, in your opinion, bucked the trend and somehow escaped the proto-orthodox battle with Simon and his spiritual descendants largely unmolested.
Since there is no manuscript evidence for an earlier version of the Paulines, I can understand your reluctance to admit the existence of such. But I think that you should also acknowledge that there are a number of significant factors that point to it. For example, at the first real surfacing of the Pauline letters in the early record, Marcion was already claiming that they had been tampered with. And in some very early texts Paul comes across as Simon of Samaria (e.g., the text that underlies the pseudo-Clementine Homelies). And the text of the Paulines is recognized as inconsistent at many points where it deals with issues controverted by the proto-orthodox and Simonians (e.g., the Law). And Justin, the first proto-orthodox heresy hunter, openly and repeatedly detests Simon of Samaria and his doctrines but, strangely, never even mentions a single time anyone named Paul or letters by Paul—and this is true even in his very long “Dialogue” with the Jew Trypho! The proto-orthodox would subsequently acknowledge that Jews had had major problems with Paul and badly misunderstood him. But Justin, in his extensive Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, nowhere in the one hundred and forty-two chapters tries to clear up the misunderstanding or even make a peep about Paul to defend him. Don’t you find that odd? (My guess is that Justin knew “Paul” was a recent concoction and saw no need to go into that with Trypho. Much simpler to just disown the real figure: Simon.)
So I think you should do both: point out that there is no clear manuscript evidence for an earlier version of the Paulines, but also point out that are many puzzling things in the early record that would make sense it there was in fact an earlier Simonian version. This deserves to be part of any discussion about Paul. The proto-orthodox call Simon the father of heresy and Gnosticism, and they at the same time acknowledge that the early heretics consider Paul their apostle. So it may be that the proto-orthodox caricatured Simon Megas into Simon Magus, and created a sanitized version of him for their own use: Paul (the “small one”). They turned the Great one into the Small one. (Sadly, if this scenario is correct, we may never have any manuscript evidence for the original Paulines. The proto-orthodox say they were a secretive community. And so the letters were likely for their own internal use only—until the proto-orthodox got their hands on a copy, that is, and turned them into letters of “Paul.”)
Jesus as “God chief angel”… Where did Paul got this idea? From The Book of Daniel? From other apocalyptic literature? There’s any realistic connection between Jesus as an angel and the Archangel Micheal (in Paul)?
It’s really a shocking statement and a big surprise for me, you have to tell us more 🙂 !
I argue inthe book that angels appear on earth as humans throughout the bible, and this was the model for what Paul had in mind.
But if Christ “appeared” as a human on earth, that’s a super argument for Docetism, which the early Church rebelled against pretty strongly, esp. in the General Epistles. And if Paul was known as a major proponent of this, why wasn’t he rejected as a false prophet? Or was he just too darned subtle in getting this point across?
Yes, it could be (and docetists did use these passages toward this end). But Paul also says that Jesus was “born of a woman” and that not docetic. so he was used by both camps.
I find it slightly contradictory, then, for him to have said Christ was fully human, but also an Angel, since the two are not generally compatible. But then again, Paul was often contradictory, so that’s par for the course, and not YOUR fault, but his, for being so open to multiple interpretations! I also assume you’re basing your argument on the Authentic Epistles of Paul, and not Hebrews or the forged ones.
For Paul, Christ was a divine being (angel) who became a human being. That incarnational view becomes the core of the Christian message.
“As the Angel of the Lord, Christ is a pre-existent being who is divine; he can be called God; and he is God’s manifestation on earth in human flesh.”
I guess I am a bit confused. What exactly is an Angel of the Lord, who can be called God? I thought that Angels and God were separate beings, although Angels were ambassadors of God to his people. Is there a distinction between Angels of the Lord and Angels?
I am an atheist, find these things fascinating and thanks to this blog found out that religion is not necessarily bad or good, but probably a necessity for the complexity of the human tribe.
Ah, you need to read my book! Maybe I’ll post some parts where I talk about angels in the Hebrew Bible who are called God.
Yes, like the famous ‘Angel of Death’ who seems to be God himself (‘I will go through Egypt etc’), or at least an extension of him.
Are there other instances in the NT that support this theory? The Book of Hebrews claims that Christ was “higher than” the angels, but not literally one. Not sure I’ve read anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, ether, of angels that could be literally called “God.”
And why did none of the Church Fathers assert that he was an Angel of God in this exact manner? Did they, and the Creed Composers of the Fourth Century, miss this entirely? It surely would have made for a more interesting Nicene Creed, and could have possibly skirted some of the Greek Philosophical somersaults required to “make things fit” in that creed and later ones.
Yup, other passages of the NT have comparable ideas. And yes, church Fathers did indeed talk about Christ as the Angel of the Lord. Justin Martyr especially.
The plot thickens considerably!
Indeed! But I still wonder why the idea apparently never caught on, because he’s certainly not an angel by the time of the Fourth Century Creeds.
Yes indeed! It was an idea that quickly became surpassed as the Christians began to say even more exalted things about him!
Are Justin Martyr’s views in his first or second Apology? That’s the only thing by him that I have in my library and I don’t see anything about Christ Angels in the index (aside from non-Christological references to angels). From what I see online about his comments in that regard though…sounds like a topic I’d like to hear you get into!
Try the First Dialogue ch. 63 and the Dialogue with Trypho 56-59.
Your discussion of angels becoming human reminds of the movie City of Angels which starred Nicholas Cage as an angel who fell in love with Meg Ryan’s character and decided he wanted to become human so he could pursue a relationship with her. He intentionally fell off a skyscraper which resulted in him becoming a fully adult human being (who looked like Nicholas Cage of course). Paul thought Jesus went through the entire process of becoming human including birth (Galatians 4:4).
People in the first century would not have understood DNA and genetics. What was the view of people in the first century about procreation and inherited traits from parents?
I wish I knew!
In another post you stated:
And so I continued my quest for truth. And I came to think that the view of Christ in the Gospel of John was a later development in the Christian tradition. It was not something that Jesus himself actually taught and it was not something that could be found in the other Gospels. In John Jesus is a pre-existent divine being who is equal with God. The earliest Christians did not believe this. And now – all these years later – I know why. The earliest Christians had “exaltation” Christologies in which the human being Jesus was made the Son of God. John has a different Christology. In his view, Christ was a divine being who became human. I will be calling this an “incarnation” Christology.
Could you contrast John’s views of Christ with what you now believe Paul’s views are? Are John’s so different?
They are similar but different at key points. I’ll be dealing with this explicitly in my book, and will maybe post on it, as it is a really important point. (For one thing, Jesus in his preexistent state is a much more exalted than an angel for John; he is the very Word of God who created the universe)
Have you finished wrestling iwth 1 Cor 8,6 yet? Previously, you responded that you were inclined to see this as “a reference to Christ as Sophia/Wisdom as in Proverbs 8 (Wisdom was with God as a master worker when he made all things).” I hate to say it, but this idea of a primordial divine instrument of creation is rather high up there on the divine scale, not that different from John’s logos christology.
Yes, I do think it is Christ as Wisdom, and yes it is an incarnational Christology. But not as “high” as John’s for reasons I’ll explain in the book.
Thanks for your reply about why Paul did not write more about Jesus being an “angel.” I think this “angel” blog sets some sort of record for the number of reader responses as well as the number of your responses. That must say something about something.
I can’t wait for that book, it looks like a masterpiece from here, is it possible I can buy an unfinished copy?
I can’t wait either! But no, publishers don’t allow unfinished copies to circulate….
There’s obviously going to be a huge push-back/scramble counter-attack from the Christian side of things, especially from evangelicals like D. Bock: Are you including in your book some anticipated counter-arguments?
Yes, I generally try to cover my bases!
the author of Hebrews say’s Jesus is greater than an angel, so how does that work with Paul’s theology? because i know that some people believe Paul is the author of Hebrews, his letters were collected with that as one of them.
Yes, Hebrews is reacting against an angel-Christology. Paul did not write the letter, so there’s not a direct conflict….
Interesting that the last comment on here was about Hebrews being *against* an angel Christology – I was just coming on here to ask if it might be supportive of it, and what your views are on whether it was penned by Paul or not. Reason being, the author seems to be contrasting Jesus to the angels in the first chapter, not to establish that he *isn’t* one of them, but that God raised him up from the position of an “average” angel, to become far superior to them – hinging on verse 4, where it says “having BECOME [not sure what that is in Greek] as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs”. Is that possible? With that view, the rest of the chapter seems to fit right in… thoughts?
Yeah, I thought of that. But the whole section of Hebrews is contrasting Jesus with things that he is not (Moses, Joshua, Prophets, Priests, and so on)
Hi, I think there is a more strikingly odd, and more explicit assertion about through “whom” the Law was given to Moses in Gal 3:19, in direct contradiction with Ex 31:18 (by the way, one of my favorites contradictions in the entire Bible). And this also can be found in the speech of Stephen [Acts 7:53].
a) Is there a chance that Paul is being derivative in Gal 4:14 from his more explicit (although very Odd) assertion in Gal 3:19?? Namely, anything Divine apart God the Father is an Angelic figure being Christ at the top of the Hierarchy.
b) Since both Paul and the author of Acts makes the very same statement regarding Angels in the Sinai story; It is possible that was a common 1st century Jewish re-interpretation of Exodus? or It is that both are relying in a common tradition outside Jewish community?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking in a); in terms of b), that’s what I always heard, but I’ve never followed it up to see if there’s any basis to it.
Sorry for the poor phrasing. English is not my mother tongue. I was referring to Paul’s larger view of the heavenly order in which Christ ranks as God’s chief angel, as Garrett points out.
It would make perfect sense, as you points out, Paul’s views of Jesus with one exception. It seems that in Paul’s view, the Christ was not Yahweh itself incarnated in human flesh, the Son yes, but not in a trinitarian way, in my opinion. In addition, Paul’s description of Sin as a demonic cosmological power [ i.e. Romans 7:11] would fit also within this view.
Being a dualist, it is not that strange infer that Paul’s “Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou” extends to both earthly and heavenly realms, including most likely the postexilic beliefs of a heavenly hierarchy expounded by Ezekiel, Daniel and I Enoch.
In summary, I think that Paul’s overarching thesis it is not Who Jesus was, as in the Gospels, but instead what role he plays in the grand scheme of things, which is the imminent God’s judgment over the earth and the restoration of his creation.
Yes, we appear to have similar views.
This is highly interesting! I’ve seen where Jehovah’s Witnesses incorporate this into their theology. According to them, Jesus was Michael the Archangel prior to his birth, using Philippians 2:5-11 to demonstrate his pre-existence. After his crucifixion, Jesus then returns as an exalted angel who sits at the right hand of God.
In the book, How Jesus Became God, you state that the Christ Poem in Phillipians 2 is most likely a Pre-Pauline tradition. A couple of things about the poem are peculiar to me:
In the line, “Becoming obedient unto death–even death on a cross,” you state that “death on a cross” was probably Paul adding to the poem. I’m wondering why the cross isn’t mentioned in the first place and why Paul felt the need to add the line.
But what really strikes me as strange is that *after* Jesus dies, God exalts him and it’s at this point he’s bestowed with the name above every name–Jesus. Why would he be named after his death? It comes across as though he either has no given name before his death or that he had a different name before his death and “Jesus” is the exalted name given to him after completing his mission.
What mattered to the author of hte poem is that Christ was “obedient unto death” — not so much that he was killed specifically on a *cross*. The latter really mattered to Paul.
I know it sounds like the hymn is saying that at his resurrection/exaltation is when he got the name “Jesus” but most scholars think that “the name” he received was not Jesus but “kurios” — Lord. That’s when he became Lord. So that is why everyone bows down to Jesus in the end. He is the Lord of all, made that way by God himself.
Dr Ehrman –
In every one of these scriptures below (plus more than a dozen others) from the Septuagint we find “aggelos” translated simply as “messenger”.
gen 32:3 gen 32-6 numbers 20:14 numbers 24:12 joshua 7:22 judges 6:35 judges 7:24 judges 9:21 judges 11:12 judges 11:13
Messenger. a guy delivering a message. .
But, in the Galatian scripture you mention – in an ENGLISH translation (for goodness sake) – aggelos is translated as “angel”.
And why? There’s no telling. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this scripture *must* be, in this case, translated as “angel”, when “messenger of God” works perfectly well. There is no reason for the Galatians to have received Paul “as an angel”, That practically makes no sense, in and of itself (IMHO)
But, forget that opinion. Here’s the real problem with your “Paul thought Jesus was an angel” theory: This theory, that you’re suggesting as Paul’s “theology” (that Jesus was a angel) flies totally and absolutely in the face of what he says in 1 Cor 6:3: “Do you not know that we will judge angels?”
If your theory about Paul’s “Jesus was an angel” theology is correct, then it must also be correct that we are to judge Christ. But, I cannot tell you how so very seriously I doubt that as being Paul’s theology. At all. In any fashion.
This passage from Galatians looks like to me is an English translators arbitrary decision to use “angel” rather than “messenger of God” in this case, perhaps thinking that the “natural reading” of this scripture would be “…as an angel, [even] as Jesus Christ”, never thinking that anyone would somehow conclude that Paul was saying “Jesus is an angel”.
I’d say the English translator made a bad choice in this case. We find the word “aggelos” translated simply as “messenger” in Matt 10:11, Luke 7:24, and a few other places in the NT, so it’s not as if, by some “rule”, the word must always be translated as “angel” in the NT (just as in the OT)
Receiving Paul as a “messenger from God”, however, makes perfect sense. Jesus Christ was a messenger from God. But he was not an angel, unless you think that Paul believes we will judge Christ.
The translation completely depends on the context. “Angel” makes particular sense in Galatians, or so it is widely thought; but yes, it, as with all translation matters, is a matter of judgment. Since Paul understood Christ to be a heavenly being, and aggeloi tou theou are normally thought to be heavenly messengers, that is, angels. The argument for Paul having an angelic christology, of course, is not rooted simply in this one verse. Instead, it makes sense of so many other things Paul says, especially, for example, in the Christ poem of Phil. 2:6-11.
Regarding the argument that Paul saw Jesus as an angel, I don’t think you referenced this verse in your book (How Jesus Became God), but would this be another example?
1 Thess 4.15-16 (NRSV)
“For this we declare to you bu the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with an archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”
I’m presuming the Lord here is Jesus distinct from The Father. If so, Jesus seems to be depicted here as having an archangel’s voice or call?
Ah, good question. I’ve always assumed that an archangel was announcing the arrival of the Lord, like a herald announcing the arrival of the king.
Ah, well. I thought I was on to something. Jesus had a cry of command, a voice of an archangel, and maybe also playing the trumpet – I assumed it was he that had all three. The Greek use of whatever stands in for ‘with’ doesn’t work for those coming from him rather than being simultaneously present with him? Though I suppose it would be difficult to play a trumpet while using your archangel voice.
It would be a miracle!
Doctor Bart; I’m grateful you repeat yourself I just joined the blog there’s no possible way I could ever read all this content LOL😊👍
Dear Bart, you wrote: “As the Gieschen has argued and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ. It is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.”
However, Gieschen points out that you may have misread his argument: “This implication, “Christ is *an* angel” (emphasis mine), is quite different from the conclusion of the discussion of this text in my book (…) Anyone who has read my chapter on Paul, much less the rest of my book, knows that I strongly support the understanding that Paul identifies Christ within the mystery of the one God of Israel, including in this possible claim by Paul that Christ is God’s Angel. (…) [Ehrman], however, means something much different, and certainly something quite contrary to my understanding.” – Charles A. Gieschen (2018). Misquoting Gieschen. CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY 82:1-2. pp.139-141.
Q1: have you read his reaction and, if so, reacted in response?
Q2: Might it change your view as laid out in this blog post?
1. Interesting. 2. It would change that I appeal to him in support! But I don’t understand his statement — I’m not sure what he’s saying I got wrong about his book. I agree that Paul thinks of Christ as connected to the one God of Israel and that Christ is God’s Angel. So is he saying he thinks I misrepresented him because I didn’t state it as a *possibility* but as the way Paul *probably did* see Christ? His whole book is designed to show that “angelomorphic Christologies” had a huge effect on ealry Christian writers including Paul, and he says that these Christologies idenfied “Christ with angelic form or functions, either beore or after the incarnation, whether or not he is specifically identified as an angel” p. 28 (So is he saying that Paul portrays Christ as an angel but does not come out and *say* that “Christ was an angel”? I don’t think I ever say that Paul says “Christ was an angel” either. So I’m a bit confused.
Dear Bart,
To me, it’s not entirely clear either, on which point Gieschen thinks you misread him. For convenience, you can read his short article (3 pages) here:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/GieschenMisquotingGieschen.pdf
After reading it again, I get the sense that Gieschen just doesn’t like this part of your sentence: “Christ as an angel”, because it can be read as: “Christ as *an* angel” (Gieschen’s emphasis). Gieschen seems to argue that Paul viewed Christ as “the most authoritative angel”[1]. And when you write that Paul viewed Christ “as an angel”, Gieschen thinks that you mean just any angel, regardless of the angel’s status in hierarchy.
If this is correct, then you actually do not misread him, since saying that “Christ is an angel” includes the possibility “Christ is the most authoritative angel”.
Q1: Do you agree on this summary of mine?
Q2: Do you actually read all scholarly replies to your works? As a research scholar, are you or do you feel morally obliged to respond to these kind of published replies?
[1] Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 323–324.
I haven’t read his piece, but I am curious why he felt he had to defend himself against a possible misreading….