Bart Ehrman: Was Jesus A Pre-Mortal Angel?

[Cold Steel]

Contrarian scholar Bart Ehrman has concluded, after studying Galatians 4:14, that Jesus was not the premortal Son of God, and a member of the Godhead, but an angel. Nearly all popular translations indicate that Paul was speaking of himself; however Ehrman disagrees.

The scripture states:

"...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...." (Young's Literal Translation)

And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (KJV)

Ehrman comments:

Here’s a bit from my 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.

Naturally, the Jehovah's Witnesses are touting the article to show that they are right about Jesus being the premortal Michael, the Archangel. The entire article, Paul's View of Jesus As an Angel, can be read here.

I'm not impressed by his conclusions, as virtually all translations render it otherwise, and his interpretation would make little sense.

What are your thoughts?

-------------------

Background: Evangelical Don Closson writes:

Bart Ehrman is a product of evangelicalism's center. Educated at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he knows how conservative Christians think because he used to be one. His recent book Misquoting Jesus has been called "one of the unlikeliest bestsellers" of the year, and with it he has managed to bring to the public's attention the obscure world of New Testament textual criticism.

Having professed faith in Christ while in high school, Ehrman went off to college with a simple trust in the New Testament text, a trust that included verbal, plenary inspiration. In other words, he believed that God had inspired and preserved every word of the Bible. By the time Ehrman began doing graduate work at Princeton, he was having serious reservations about the text and its source. He now considers himself an agnostic and writes books that question most of what his fellow classmates at Moody and Wheaton believe.

[Nevo]

Well, I don't think Margaret Barker, at least, will be surprised at the idea that some early Christians understood Jesus, before coming to earth, to have been an angel.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Nevo

[Cold Steel]

Margaret Barker is a respected Old Testament scholar, who has consistently said that Yahweh was not the Father God, but a Son of God who was acting under the authority of his Father. She's on an entirely different (better) level than Ehrman.

[Ron Beron]

Equating Barker and Ehrman as less than equals is not fair to either one since they are both respected in their fields of study. What you didn't print was the entire post.

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 because 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.

I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. But in fact the grammar of the Greek is suggesting something quite different. 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.

As I indicated, the reason for reading the verse this way has to do with the Greek grammar. When Paul uses the construction “but as … as” he is not contrasting two things; he is stating that the two things are the same thing. We know this because Paul uses this grammatical construction in a couple of other places in his writings, and the meaning in these cases is unambiguous. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:1 Paul says this: “Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.” The last bit “but as…as” indicates two identifying features of the recipients of Paul’s letter: they are fleshly people and they are infants in Christ. These are not two contrasting statements; they modify each other. The same can be said of Paul’s comments in 2 Cor. 2:17, which also has this grammatical feature.

But this means that in Galatians 4:14 Paul is not contrasting Christ to an angel; he is equating him to an angel. Garrett goes a step further and argues that Gal. 4:14 indicates that Paul “identifies [Jesus Christ] with God’s chief angel” [p. 11].

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. Paul says all these things about Christ, and in no passage more strikingly than in Philippians 2:6-11, a passage that is often called by scholars the “Philippians Hymn” or the “Christ Hymn of Philippians,” since it is widely thought to embody an early hymn or poem devoted to celebrating Christ and his incarnation.

My friend Charles Cosgrove, a life-long scholar of Paul who is also one of the world’s experts on music in the early Christian world, has convinced me that the passage could not have been an actual hymn that was sung, since it does not scan properly, as a musical piece, in the Greek. And so it may be a poem or even a kind of exalted prose composition. But what is clear is that it is an elevated reflection on Christ coming into the world (from heaven) for the sake of others and being glorified by God as a result. And it appears to be a passage that Paul is quoting, one with which the Philippians themselves may well have already been familiar. In other words, it is another pre-Pauline tradition (see the discussion of Romans 1:3-4 on pp. xxx).

Bold mine

[Stone holm]

Well, don't we all think of men before they are born as angels? Am I missing something here, it seems consistent with LDS doctrine. Doesn't Christ become Christ when He says "Here send me..."

[cdowis]

The point here is that nonLDS scholars are coming to a similar conclusion as the LDS.

[Stone holm]

The point here is that nonLDS scholars are coming to a similar conclusion as the LDS.

Don't the JW believe that as well.

[Anakin7]

Don't the JW believe that as well.

I can see now how the J.W are going to solidify there Jesus as an Angel Doctrine in there current and future Awake and Watchtower publications.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited June 18, 2013 by Anakin7

[pmccombs1]

I'm not impressed by his conclusions, as virtually all translations render it otherwise, and his interpretation would make little sense.

What are your thoughts?

As Ron pointed out, Ehrman himself once thought as you do... "The reason it never registered with me is because 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." So, this isn't a matter of translation, but of interpretation. And Ehrman is saying that scholarship points to an interpretation that does not agree with the common one. Of course you're not impressed; you have bias and apparently dismiss "the work of other scholars" out of hand. But you make no actual argument other than "that's not what the translations say," which is not at all in dispute. The question is, "what do they mean?" And that is where Ehrman's research is focused.

She's on an entirely different (better) level than Ehrman.

Is that level 14? Or is it just called "An Entirely Different Better Level (Because It Jives With My Beliefs)?" I suppose that's all quantified and printed on a certificate somewhere.

You know, I think Ehrman presents a number of difficult arguments based on research, and I think he's generally an honest researcher. From an impartial standpoint, I can see how his arguments are plausible. What we seem to lack are faithful responses to those arguments that are also based in scholarship. Instead, we see: "Ehrman is on a lower level." Or, "Ehrman is unimpressive." These are ad hominems and fail to be actual arguments.

I think Stone Holm has more of a reasonable approach--one that seeks to reconcile interpretations. It isn't always necessary to refute an argument that has a certain amount of reason behind it. Sometimes you just have to see it from a different perspective.

[Kevin Christensen]

A lot depends on what you see as the implications of Jesus being an angel. Margaret likes to point out that the Greek of Isaiah's prophesy uses the title "angel of the great council" as equivalent to the four throne titles in the Hebrew. Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. And angel, of course, means "messenger." That Margaret has a book called "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God" suggests to me that calling Jesus an angel, is not necessarily the same thing as saying "that Jesus was NOT the premortal Son of God, and a member of the Godhead, but [merely] an angel." Rather, given the things I've been reading, it means that the premortal Son of God Most High, that is the son of El Elyon, and Member of the Godhead known as Yahweh, was also known as the Great Angel, the Angel of the Great Council." Even the Exodus account of Moses' theophany at times uses "angel" as a designation for I AM. Margaret argues that the angels of the divine council were the sons of El Elyon. And that the anthropomorphic accounts of the Angel of the Presence were theophanies because the term "Angel of the presence" describes a manifestation of Yahweh in human form.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Stone holm]

A lot depends on what you see as the implications of Jesus being an angel. Margaret likes to point out that the Greek of Isaiah's prophesy uses the title "angel of the great council" as equivalent to the four throne titles in the Hebrew. Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. And angel, of course, means "messenger." That Margaret has a book called "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God" suggests to me that calling Jesus an angel, is not necessarily the same thing as saying "that Jesus was NOT the premortal Son of God, and a member of the Godhead, but [merely] an angel." Rather, given the things I've been reading, it means that the premortal Son of God Most High, that is the son of El Elyon, and Member of the Godhead known as Yahweh, was also known as the Great Angel, the Angel of the Great Council." Even the Exodus account of Moses' theophany at times uses "angel" as a designation for I AM. Margaret argues that the angels of the divine council were the sons of El Elyon. And that the anthropomorphic accounts of the Angel of the Presence were theophanies because the term "Angel of the presence" describes a manifestation of Yahweh in human form.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

So doesn't it really come down not to what Jesus is, but what an angel is?

[Kevin Christensen]

So doesn't it really come down not to what Jesus is, but what an angel is?

A lot depends on what Jesus is, and a lot of our access to understanding his claims, and the claims made about him, but whom, when, depends on how we understand angel.

Barker cites Eusebius:

Remember how Moses calls the Being, who appeared to the

patriarchs and often delivered to them oracles written down in

Scripture, sometimes God and LORD, and sometimes the Angel of the LORD. He clearly implies that this was not the Omnipotent

God, but a secondary being, rightly called the God and LORD of

holy men, but the Angel of the Most High his Father

http://www.theway.or...k/431Barker.pdf

This essay is a brief introduction to the evidence that she explores in far greater depth in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. And she has admitted that she set out to write a very different book, but the weight of the evidence took her to a different place. I can't imagine any Jehovah's Witness being able to comfortably digest her book.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Stone holm]

A lot depends on what Jesus is, and a lot of our access to understanding his claims, and the claims made about him, but whom, when, depends on how we understand angel.

Barker cites Eusebius:

http://www.theway.or...k/431Barker.pdf

This essay is a brief introduction to the evidence that she explores in far greater depth in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. And she has admitted that she set out to write a very different book, but the weight of the evidence took to a different place. I can't imagine any Jehovah's Witness being able to comfortably digest her book.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Well guess we can scratch off Eusebius as a source then.

[rameumptom]

Barker finds her evidence primarily in the Old Testament, but then brings it through the New Testament as a renewal of ancient things. Ehrman is (in this instance, anyway) strictly dealing with Paul - not even the New Testament. For him to determine that Paul sees Christ as an angel, means that definitions must change. The Protestant view of "angel" does not fit neatly with Christ being both an angel AND God. Why? Because they believe that angels are lesser beings made of imperfect substance, and can never have the fulness of the glory of the Lord.

But here, we have Christ appearing to Paul, and delivering a message to him: repent or be destroyed! It is very suggestive of the stuff Barker teaches.

[Ahab]

Contrarian scholar Bart Ehrman has concluded, after studying Galatians 4:14, that Jesus was not the premortal Son of God, and a member of the Godhead, but an angel. Nearly all popular translations indicate that Paul was speaking of himself; however Ehrman disagrees.

An angel is simply a messenger of God, so Jesus was in fact an angel. He was also the premortal Son of God, though, and I don't know why he can't see that is true if he can acknowledge that he did become the mortal Son of God and at the time before he became mortal he was premortal. It's also kinda strange that he can't see that Jesus was a member of the Godhead, since that Godhead by definition includes him as one of the 3 members. So, so much for that.

[JAHS]

The pre-mortal Jesus, who was the God of the Old Testament was called an Angel by Israel:

"And he (Israel) blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,

The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (Gen 48: 15-16)

[Stone holm]

Always thought an "angel" simply meant in LDS language someone who was not mortal. It could include the devils. Some have even suggested that "angels" could include holy mortal men sent as messengers. So I repeat it really depends on what you mean by "angel". The Protestants appear to view angels as something like good djinn. Von Daniken thought they might be robots.

[Cold Steel]

As Ron pointed out, Ehrman himself once thought as you do... "The reason it never registered with me is because 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." So, this isn't a matter of translation, but of interpretation. And Ehrman is saying that scholarship points to an interpretation that does not agree with the common one. Of course you're not impressed; you have bias and apparently dismiss "the work of other scholars" out of hand.

No, not out of hand. I just can't conceive of what Paul would be thinking of when he made such a statement as the one Ehrman suggests. Nor is there anything I can find in either the Old or New Testaments teach that Jesus was an "angel" in the traditional sense of the word. The word also can refer to "sent one" or "messenger," as many translations render it.

Galatians 4:14 states:

• ...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...." (
  Young's Literal Translation
  )

  
  

• And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (
  KJV
  )

  
  

• 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. (
  Ehrman's translation
  )

  
  

Given his translation, Ehrman believes the Galatians received him as an angel, or messenger, of God, "as Jesus Christ." And what are we to make of the word "angel" (which means "sent one" or "messenger")? To me it seems obvious that Paul was referring to himself. Remember, there was no punctuation in these ancient languages. One has to figure out what's being said, then add the punctuation.

Does it make sense to say that they received him as the angel of God, Jesus Christ? Or that they received him as a messenger, or sent one, of Jesus Christ? I see no indication whatsoever that the Galatians received him as they did Jesus Christ. (Or, as he would have it, "an angel of God, even Jesus Christ.") Ehrman wouldn't go that far and admits the verse is "a bit obtuse." So he's willing to go out on a limb and create a new doctrine that isn't anywhere taught in either the Old or New Testaments!

But let him have it his own way. A third interpretation he doesn't mention is that the Galatians received Paul as Jesus Christ. But, again, it doesn't make sense contextually, either. It only makes sense, to me, that they received him as a messenger of God, even as they did Jesus Christ. As Ehrman puts it, "I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself."

But what's all this he makes of angels and angelic visitors? If one views the verse in Young's Literal Translation: "...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...."

Malachi writes of Christ when he says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap...." (Malachi 3:1-2)

As Elder Francis M. Gibbons states: "He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Creator. He is our Advocate with the Father. He is our Exemplar. He is often called the Good Shepherd or the Great Judge. He is sometimes referred to as our King, or as the King of Kings; as the Lamb of God; as the Light of the World; as the Lawgiver; or as the Mediator. Sometimes he is called the Messenger of the Covenant, or the Rock of our Salvation; the Chief Cornerstone; the Son of Man; the Anointed One, the Deliverer, or the Man of Sorrows; or the Only Begotten of the Father."

I posted the site of the original post by Ehrman, so I wasn't trying to weasel out of anything. Even using Ehrman's translation, I think it's clear that the Galatians received Paul as a messenger of God, even as they received Jesus Christ. But I don't see them receiving Paul as they did the angel of God, Jesus Christ. As Uncle Cletus used to say, "It just don't make no sense!"

[Stone holm]

No, not out of hand. I just can't conceive of what Paul would be thinking of when he made such a statement as the one Ehrman suggests. Nor is there anything I can find in either the Old or New Testaments teach that Jesus was an "angel" in the traditional sense of the word. The word also can refer to "sent one" or "messenger," as many translations render it.

Galatians 4:14 states:

• 
  
  ...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...." (
  Young's Literal Translation
  )
  
  
• 
  
  And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (
  KJV
  )
  
  
• 
  
  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. (
  Ehrman's translation
  )
  
  

Given his translation, Ehrman believes the Galatians received him as an angel, or messenger, of God, "as Jesus Christ." And what are we to make of the word "angel" (which means "sent one" or "messenger")? To me it seems obvious that Paul was referring to himself. Remember, there was no punctuation in these ancient languages. One has to figure out what's being said, then add the punctuation.

Does it make sense to say that they received him as the angel of God, Jesus Christ? Or that they received him as a messenger, or sent one, of Jesus Christ? I see no indication whatsoever that the Galatians received him as they did Jesus Christ. (Or, as he would have it, "an angel of God, even Jesus Christ.") Ehrman wouldn't go that far and admits the verse is "a bit obtuse." So he's willing to go out on a limb and create a new doctrine that isn't anywhere taught in either the Old or New Testaments!

But let him have it his own way. A third interpretation he doesn't mention is that the Galatians received Paul as Jesus Christ. But, again, it doesn't make sense contextually, either. It only makes sense, to me, that they received him as a messenger of God, even as they did Jesus Christ. As Ehrman puts it, "I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself."

But what's all this he makes of angels and angelic visitors? If one views the verse in Young's Literal Translation: "...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...."

Malachi writes of Christ when he says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap...." (Malachi 3:1-2)

As Elder Francis M. Gibbons states: "He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Creator. He is our Advocate with the Father. He is our Exemplar. He is often called the Good Shepherd or the Great Judge. He is sometimes referred to as our King, or as the King of Kings; as the Lamb of God; as the Light of the World; as the Lawgiver; or as the Mediator. Sometimes he is called the Messenger of the Covenant, or the Rock of our Salvation; the Chief Cornerstone; the Son of Man; the Anointed One, the Deliverer, or the Man of Sorrows; or the Only Begotten of the Father."

I posted the site of the original post by Ehrman, so I wasn't trying to weasel out of anything. Even using Ehrman's translation, I think it's clear that the Galatians received Paul as a messenger of God, even as they received Jesus Christ. But I don't see them receiving Paul as they did the angel of God, Jesus Christ. As Uncle Cletus used to say, "It just don't make no sense!"

Personally, I find it always dangerous to rely too much on Paul's flowery verbiage -- one often wind up spending more effort trying to make sense of what he said than the substance is worth.

[USU78]

"Whom shall I send?" asked the Father in the Council in Heaven.

Then He said, "I will send the First."

So . . . as the Sent One, the Master is certainly an Angel.

But you've got to say as well that He was THE Angel.

[Ahab]

"Whom shall I send?" asked the Father in the Council in Heaven.

Then He said, "I will send the First."

So . . . as the Sent One, the Master is certainly an Angel.

But you've got to say as well that He was THE Angel.

Hmm. Kinda like how the p works for prophet/Prophet.

[Cold Steel]

Always thought an "angel" simply meant in LDS language someone who was not mortal. It could include the devils. Some have even suggested that "angels" could include holy mortal men sent as messengers. So I repeat it really depends on what you mean by "angel". The Protestants appear to view angels as something like good djinn. Von Daniken thought they might be robots.

The term "angel" simply means "sent one" or "messenger." And, naturally, it refers to heavenly beings like Moroni, Michael, Gabriel, as well as living mortals.

It's just like the book of Ecclesiastes. The Jehovah's Witnesses and other Adventists use it as a eschatological work, taking it literally when Solomon writes that there are no works or thoughts or whatever beyond the grave. Actually, it's more of a philosophical book, but they take Solomon's ill-tempered views and use them to conclude that when you die, you die. And once they have so concluded, they ignore all the other scriptures that would indicate otherwise.

The JWs are very interested in this new angle, and as Ehrman notes, other scholars are taking notice of this new exegesis.

As stated in my last post, Jesus was the "messenger of the covenant" mentioned in Malachi. Also, as JAHS rightly pointed out, Jehovah was the Angel of Israel:

And he (Israel) blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (Gen. 48:15-16)

It's interesting that Jehovah is called "the Angel" or "the Messenger" in this verse; however, I would still find Paul's reference of "messenger" applying to Christ instead of himself. I can't read the original language, but even using Erhman's translation I still see it as referring to Paul. But thanks for the reference, as it's another torpedo in Erhman's conclusion that Jesus was [merely] an angel.

[Ron Beron]

I posted the site of the original post by Ehrman, so I wasn't trying to weasel out of anything. Even using Ehrman's translation,

I wasn't implying that you were weaseling out, but that Ehrman has two sites; one for subscribers and one for the the general public.

[Stone holm]

The term "angel" simply means "sent one" or "messenger." And, naturally, it refers to heavenly beings like Moroni, Michael, Gabriel, as well as living mortals.

It's just like the book of Ecclesiastes. The Jehovah's Witnesses and other Adventists use it as a eschatological work, taking it literally when Solomon writes that there are no works or thoughts or whatever beyond the grave. Actually, it's more of a philosophical book, but they take Solomon's ill-tempered views and use them to conclude that when you die, you die. And once they have so concluded, they ignore all the other scriptures that would indicate otherwise.

The JWs are very interested in this new angle, and as Ehrman notes, other scholars are taking notice of this new exegesis.

If it merely signifies one who has been sent then how is it Satan is sometimes so referenced. Personally, was always intrigued by Vonnegut Danikens idea that the destroying angels were robots.

As stated in my last post, Jesus was the "messenger of the covenant" mentioned in Malachi. Also, as JAHS rightly pointed out, Jehovah was the Angel of Israel:

And he (Israel) blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (Gen. 48:15-16)

It's interesting that Jehovah is called "the Angel" or "the Messenger" in this verse; however, I would still find Paul's reference of "messenger" applying to Christ instead of himself. I can't read the original language, but even using Erhman's translation I still see it as referring to Paul. But thanks for the reference, as it's another torpedo in Erhman's conclusion that Jesus was [merely] an angel.

Sorry it inserted my statement inside the quote and I don't know how to fix it.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Stone holm