Thoughts From Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God…

I finally got around to begin reading Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God and so far, it’s okay. Ehrman draws comparisons of Jesus to other god-man figures around the same time period of Jesus and essentially, as far as I can tell, makes the assertion (among other related assertions) that Jesus never believed himself to be God incarnate. And as ridiculous as this may sound, that actually doesn’t bother me.

Saying that Jesus didn’t believe himself to be God isn’t the same as saying he wasn’t actually God – that is, simply because Jesus may not have believed himself to be God doesn’t necessarily mean he wasn’t. Jesus’ divinity need not have relied upon his self-awareness as God. John’s gospel would stand out as a little odd if Jesus didn’t actually believe himself to be God, but even so, he still could be God without believing it.

There are quite a few passages in the New Testament that instantly become more interesting with this understanding of Jesus’ self-understanding. When Jesus references the “Son of Man” or the “Human One” (as the CEB has it), who is Jesus talking about if he isn’t talking about himself?

One passage that comes to mind is Mark 8:27-33:

Jesus and his disciples went into the villages near Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am?’

They told him, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and still others one of the prophets.’

He asked them, ‘And what about you? Who do you say that I am?’

Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ.’ Jesus ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Then Jesus began to teach his disciples: ‘The Human One must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and the legal experts, and be killed, and then, after three days, rise from the dead.’ He said this plainly. But Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him. Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, then sternly corrected Peter: ‘Get behind me, Satan. You are not thinking God’s thoughts but human thoughts.’

As I said, there are many others, but most of them seem related to this one: predictions of the “Son of Man’s” torture, death, and resurrection. Now I know that Peter calls Jesus “the Christ” and then Jesus goes into a mini-lecture about the “Human One” or “Son of Man,” but to my understanding these were hardly indistinguishable terms. To reference one is to reference the other. If this is the case and Jesus did not believe himself to be the “Human One,” then perhaps we are seeing a bit of Jesus’ humanity – much more than we anticipated or even wanted.

If you hadn’t guessed it by now, Ehrman’s book is one about Christology (the study of Christ). Under such a study is the question of the divinity of Jesus: Whether he was God incarnate or an ordinary man who was later deified (as is Ehrman’s contention in How Jesus Became God). And after reading the hundred-some pages of Ehrman’s book, I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t a mixture of the two; that perhaps Jesus believed himself to be an ordinary man, yet was God incarnate, dwelling “among us.”

In passages like the one above, we find what we thought was a confident God-man testing his disciples about their faith. Yet if Jesus is the ordinary God-man, then might this be a scene of Jesus discovering who he actually is? When he’s asking what others think of him and then what the disciples think of him, perhaps he’s seriously wondering if he might be the Christ? And with his teaching about what the Son of God/Human One must suffer immediately following his discussion with the disciples, might this be Jesus fully realizing his fate? “He said this plainly,” half terrified and yet half mesmerized as to what was unfolding.

Although mostly to keep up with what’s popular, I am eager to read the rest of Ehrman’s book as well as the response, How God Became Jesus, from Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon J. Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, and Chris Tilling – an endeavor I wanted to take up months ago. But for now, I would love to hear what others think about the idea of Jesus not knowing he was God: Do you think it’s plausible or ridiculous? What does it mean for our faith in Christ if this were true – what changes and what stays the same?


Published by


“Do not mistake me for a conjuror of cheap tricks.”

6 thoughts on “Thoughts From Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God…”

  1. To me it seems like the whole discussion is too couched in Modern terms. “Either Jesus was God, or he wasn’t,” so the logic goes. But first you have to define the term “God,” and then have a set understanding of what it means to be God. And chances are, both Ehrman and his critics are relying on a Hellenistic philosophical understanding of the term.

    I think a more fruitful discussion is to be found in the growing body of recent work regarding Jesus’ apparent claims of divinity in GJohn and how we now perceive the difference between “signifier” and “signified”. So Jesus is the “sign” of God, who is the “signified”. “Ceci n’est pas un Dieu.”

    1. @Joshua: I think you’re onto something with defining who/what God is. We’re trained to believe that anything divine is the opposite of humanity, therefore God would be something far above and beyond us. At the very least, if God were human, it would certainly show by all the superhuman or supernatural things this Godman would do – or so our understanding seems to say. But perhaps we’ve got the wrong idea about how God operates?

      And to understand what you’re saying about John’s gospel a bit better; are you saying that Jesus is to God what John the Baptist was to Jesus? Or do you mean something else?

      (And I had to use Google Translate to figure out what “Ceci n’est pas un Dieu” meant… “This is not a God,” yeah?)

      1. Re: Jesus and John the Baptizer, not quite.

        The Baptizer was the Forerunner, pointing to “someone greater” who was to follow. Jesus is the image of God

        The Ceci n’est pas un Dieu bit was sort of a joke meant to illustrate the previous point. It’s a reference to a famous painting by French surrealist Rene Magritte. The painting features a pipe with the words “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe”), the irony being that it isn’t really a pipe, it’s just a painting (i.e. “image”) of a pipe. However, if one were to look at the painting and be asked what it was, they would invariably respond, “It’s a pipe.”

        A photograph of a tree is not itself a tree, but it nonetheless figuratively represents the tree in a way that is almost indistinguishable from standing in front of a real, live tree. Does that make sense?

        1. Ah, I get it!

          Have you read the Harry Potter series? I only ask because there’s a particular imagery from wizard portraits, which are different from “Muggle” (ordinary people) portraits. Wizard portraits have movement and are able to interact with living people, but not all wizard photos can do this – depends on the charm placed upon the photo, I suppose. Point is: these portraits operate as extensions of the consciousness of the one in the portrait (also like Superman’s father in Man of Steel). To mix these metaphors a little, Jesus appears not quite as God is in God’s own nature, but Jesus is also more than a photo of God; he’s someone one can interact with and ask questions, like wizard portraits from Harry Potter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s