“The Christ of Nicea is obviously a far cry from the historical Jesus of Nazareth, an itinerant apocalyptic preacher in the backwaters of rural Galilee, who offended the authorities and was unceremoniously crucified for crimes against the state. Whatever he may have been in real life, Jesus had now become fully God.”[1]
The history of Christian Christological thought has swung between two extremes: the outright denial of Jesus’s divine nature, confining Him solely to humanity, and the rejection of His humanity, stripping Him of it entirely. Beginning with the Enlightenment, theologians and philosophers have sought to separate the historical figure of Jesus from the kerygmatic [2] Christ presented in Scripture, embarking “on the quest” for the historical Jesus.
One prolific contributor to this discourse is Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. Ehrman earned his master’s and doctoral degrees from Princeton Theological Seminary. A renowned scholar of the New Testament, his research focuses on textual criticism, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity, establishing him as a leading expert in the field.
Raised in the Episcopalian Church, Ehrman eventually transitioned to a historical-critical approach to Scripture after identifying contradictions in biblical manuscripts. Though he remained in the Episcopalian Church for another 15 years, he ultimately became an agnostic atheist. To date, he has authored or edited 30 books.
One of his most notable works is the 2014 publication How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. In this book, Ehrman aligns himself with scholars who draw a sharp distinction between the historical reality of Jesus and the Jesus proclaimed in Scripture.
One of the most significant issues addressed by Ehrman is the concept of divinity. What does “divine” mean? How can a divine being be defined? Are there criteria or tools by which one can verify someone’s divinity? Ehrman takes readers on a journey through antiquity, focusing on ancient Greece, Rome, and Judaism. Along the way, he examines various figures who were considered divine.
The divine in the pagan world
“Today, we think of the realm of divinity, the realm of God, as completely Other and separate from our human realm. God is up there in heaven, we are down here on earth, and there is an infinite gulf between us. But most ancient people did not see the divine and earthly realms this way. The divine realm had numerous strata. Some gods were greater, one might say ‘more divine’ than others, and humans sometimes could be elevated to the ranks of those gods.”[3]
According to Ehrman, the ancient understanding of divinity presents a fascinating dynamic. While the modern perspective often imposes an unbreachable ontological divide between the divine and the human, ancient thought saw the divine as accessible through a process of becoming. This transformation was not necessarily ontological but rather a change in status. Ehrman notes that in antiquity, “there were various ways in which divine beings could be considered human, and some humans could be regarded as divine.”[4] The author argues that “one of the mistakes that people make when thinking about the question of Jesus as God involves taking the view that eventually was widely held by the fourth Christian century—that a great chasm exists between the human and divine realms—and assuming that this view was in place during the early days of the Christian movement.”[5]
Ehrman contrasts two perspectives on the relationship between divinity and humanity: the continuum perspective, which allows for movement in both directions, and the vast chasm perspective, which posits an unbridgeable ontological divide. As a proponent of the continuum perspective, Ehrman suggests that the question, “Did Christians believe Jesus was God?” should be reframed as, “In what sense did Christians consider Jesus to be God?”
The central issue, according to Ehrman, is not whether Jesus is God but in what way He is divine. In other words, he shifts the discussion from essence (ontology) to status, from being to becoming.
The divine in Judaism
Turning to the realm of Judaism, Ehrman argues that the ancient Israelites, apart from periods of idolatry, acknowledged the existence of multiple deities. Supporting this hypothesis, he points to the first commandment of the Decalogue: “You shall have no other gods before me.” According to Ehrman, the commandment does not deny the existence of other gods but rather forbids the worship of any deity other than the God of Israel.
Ehrman distinguishes between monotheism and henotheism, stating: “Monotheism is the view that there is, in fact, only one God. Henotheism is the view that there are other gods, but there is only one God who is to be worshiped. The Ten Commandments express a henotheistic view, as does the majority of the Hebrew Bible.”[6]
He further argues that the presence of angels and other entities in Scripture—referred to as thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities—supports the notion of a continuum within the divine sphere. Ehrman says that “even within Judaism there was understood to be a continuum of divine beings and divine power, comparable in many ways to that which could be found in paganism.”[7]
Ehrman draws on numerous examples from the Old Testament, both from the Masoretic text and the apocryphal books. One such example is the figure of the “Angel of the Lord,” which appears in several Old Testament passages. In Genesis 16, during Hagar’s flight with her child, and in Exodus 3, during Moses’s encounter with God in the burning bush, the Angel of the Lord is also referred to as “the Lord.” This equivalence between the Angel of the Lord and God is striking, especially when one considers the presumed ontological chasm between God and His creation.
Citing Charles Gieschen, Ehrman argues: “This Angel of the Lord is ‘either indistinguishable from God as his visible manifestation’ or he is a distinct figure, separate from God, who is bestowed with God’s own authority.”[8] Based on this, Ehrman concludes: “If angels could be gods, and if in fact the chief angel could be the Lord himself—then to make Jesus divine, one simply needs to think of him as an angel in human form.”[9]
The divine in Scripture
Ehrman approaches his argument from the assumption that the philosophical concept of the divine, as well as the ancient Jewish understanding of divinity, aligns with the biblical perspective on divinity and divine nature. However, a closer study of biblical terminology related to the divine presents a view distinct from Ehrman’s conclusions.
The most commonly used Greek term for “divine” is theios, which carries a broad semantic range. It can refer to: (1) that which pertains to the nature or status of divinity (a divine being, divinity), (2) individuals closely connected to a deity or reflecting certain divine characteristics (such as prophets), and (3) phenomena that transcend human or earthly boundaries (the supernatural).[10] In Old Testament terminology, the word Elohim is not used exclusively for God but also refers to angels and even national leaders.[11] This usage does not indicate a continuum within the divine realm but rather highlights the term’s wide semantic scope.
To understand the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and the Lord, a thorough study of the term “angel” across its biblical occurrences is essential. It is notable that in passages where the Angel of the Lord appears, He receives worship, and sacrifices are sometimes offered to Him. For instance, in Exodus 3:2, the Angel of the Lord who appears to Moses in the burning bush is identified as the same person as the Lord God, who calls out to Moses from within the bush in verses 4-6. A similar episode occurs in Judges 6, during Gideon’s encounter with the Angel of the Lord. In this passage, the Angel of the Lord (6:11, 20-22) is explicitly equated with the Lord Himself (6:14, 16, 23). The presence of a sacrifice (6:18-21) is particularly significant, given that sacrifices were offered solely to God.
Where a mere angel appears (as in Revelation 19:10), the angel explicitly refuses worship, identifying himself as a “fellow servant” alongside the prophet John. How, then, can the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament accept worship, while angels in the New Testament reject it? Why this change in attitude? A closer analysis reveals that we are dealing with two distinct entities. Nowhere in Scripture do we find an ordinary angel accepting worship or sacrifices from humans. If this is the case, the entity referred to as the Angel of the Lord must belong to a different ontological and/or functional category than other angels. If the biblical authors equate the Angel of the Lord with the Lord, it becomes clear that this figure is God Himself.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the meaning of the term divine, which can refer to different types of beings (God, angels, earthly authorities—such as in Psalm 82, where they are referred to as Elohim), and the term Deity, which refers exclusively to the Creator. While there may be beings described as divine, they remain part of the created order.
Biblical statements about Jesus Christ—both Old Testament prophecies (such as Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2) and New Testament affirmations (notably the prologue of John’s Gospel, which identifies Jesus as the Logos through whom all things were made, and the hymn in Colossians 1:15-20, which presents Jesus as the visible God who reveals the invisible God)—make it unequivocally clear that Jesus is not merely a divine being akin to angels. He is the Creator Himself.
Conclusion
While the notion of a continuum between the human and divine spheres existed in antiquity, including within certain periods of Judaism, biblical literature draws a clear distinction between Creator and creation. Angels may be described as possessing a divine nature, but they are not gods in the sense of being the Creator. If the semantic range of “divine” includes angels, one could speak of henotheism in Scripture. However, this henotheism should not be understood as a hierarchy of gods, as in pagan religions where the most powerful god serves as the leader. From the perspective of worship, Scripture firmly upholds monotheism, as only God is worthy of worship.
In cases where the Angel of the Lord receives worship, it is evident that this is no ordinary angel but God Himself, manifested in the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. There exists an ontological barrier that cannot be crossed—a boundary that distinguishes God the Creator from His creation. The Apostle John identifies Jesus Christ as the Word through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3). As the Creator, Jesus is divine not in the sense of a “becoming,” but in the fullest sense of divine existence, encapsulating the essence of “being.” While, for Ehrman, Jesus becomes God, the biblical reality is that God the Word becomes a human.
Marius Mitrache believes that there are several beings that can be considered supernatural, but not gods. Only the Creator can be called God. The coming of Jesus does not happen from the human to the divine, but from the divine to the human.
