Source: “The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ”, 2012 by Daniel Boyarin
From Son of God to Son of Man.wav
This podcast delves into the historical and theological roots of the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" as applied to Jesus, arguing against the common interpretation of "Son of God" representing divinity and "Son of Man" humanity. It contends that in ancient Israelite tradition, "Son of God" was a title for the earthly Davidic king, the anointed Messiah, while the title "Son of Man" referred to a divine, heavenly figure based on a crucial passage in the Book of Daniel. The text suggests that early Jewish expectation included a belief in a two-part Godhead, potentially stemming from ancient Israelite ideas about 'El and YHVH, which informed the understanding of the Messiah as both divine and human, thus explaining why claiming to be the Son of Man was considered blasphemous by some and a fulfillment of prophecy by others. This reinterpretation of these key titles, particularly the Messianic implications of the Son of Man's authority derived from Daniel 7, sheds light on seemingly controversial actions of Jesus, such as forgiving sins and claiming lordship over the Sabbath.
The Contrasting Meanings of "Son of God" and "Son of Man" in Mark: The sources challenge the conventional Christian understanding that "Son of God" refers to Jesus' divine nature and "Son of Man" to his human nature. While this conventional view was adopted by many Church Fathers and even reflected in some modern Bible translations, the sources argue that in the Gospel of Mark, the opposite is often true. "Son of God" is presented as referring to the human king of Israel, specifically the earthly king from David's lineage, who occupied David's seat. In contrast, "Son of Man" in Mark points to a heavenly figure and designates Jesus' divine nature, not his human aspect. This creates a seeming paradox where a name often associated with divinity ("Son of God") is used for Jesus' human, kingly role, and a term seemingly indicating humanity ("Son of Man") is used for his divine nature.
Messiah/Christ as the Anointed Human King: The terms "Messiah" (Hebrew: "mashiach") and "Christos" (Greek: "anointed one") are described as meaning exactly the same thing: "anointed one." In the Hebrew Bible, the king of Israel was called the Messiah because he was literally anointed with oil during his enthronement ceremony. Examples include Saul, David, Solomon, Jehu, Joash, and Jehoahaz. This anointing signified an extraordinarily close connection between the King of Israel and the God of Israel, YHVH. The sources emphasize that throughout the Hebrew Bible, the term "Mashiach" consistently refers to a historical, actually reigning human king of Israel. There is no implication in these specific instances of an awaited or future divine king. This "Anointed of YHVH" was a title for the earthly monarch, especially the full-blown monarch of the dynasty of David.
The King as "Son of God" through Adoption: Building on the concept of the Messiah as an anointed human king, the sources explain how this earthly king was also referred to as the "Son of God." This designation did not imply the king was divine in the sense of an incarnation of the deity. Instead, the reigning, living king of Israel was adopted by God as his son. Passages like Psalms 2:7 ("You are my son; this day I have begotten you") and Psalm 110 are cited as examples where God says to the king, "I have begotten you." The phrase "This day I have begotten you" is interpreted to mean "this day you have been enthroned." This adoption signified the king's intimate connection with God and his highly sacralized person, but not his divinity. The title "Son of God" in this context referred to the Davidic king without hints of deity incarnated in the king.
The Loss of the Davidic Kingdom and the Prayer for a Redeemer: A significant historical event discussed is the destruction of the kingdom of the Lord's anointed ones in Jerusalem during the sixth century B.C., particularly the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. The Davidic line was lost, and most of the elite were taken captive to Babylon. Even when allowed to return, there was no restoration of the Davidic kingdom and no glorious king ruling in Jerusalem. This historical tragedy led the people to pray for a new king from the House of David and a restoration of that earthly glory. It was in this context of praying for an absent king that the notion of a promised Redeemer, a new King David whom God would send at the end of days, began to take root. This idea would develop further in the Second Temple period.
The Book of Daniel and the Divine Son of Man Vision: The sources highlight the importance of the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel, written around 161 B.C., as a source for a different kind of redemption idea. This chapter contains an apocalyptic vision involving two divine figures. One is an older figure, the Ancient of Days, seated on a throne. The other is described as "one like a Son of Man" or "like a human being," who comes with the clouds of heaven and is brought before the Ancient of Days. In a ceremony resembling ancient Near Eastern royal investiture, this figure is given rulership, glory, and an eternal kingdom over all nations, peoples, and languages, who will worship him. This text projects a second divine figure who will have eternal dominion over a restored world, acting in accord with the will of the Ancient of Days. Although not explicitly called the Messiah in this text, this figure possesses crucial characteristics later associated with the Messiah/Christ.
Characteristics of the Danielic "Son of Man" and its Development: The divine figure in Daniel 7, "one like a Son of Man," is characterized as divine, appearing in human form (a God who looks like a human being), possibly portrayed as younger than the Ancient of Days, enthroned on high, and given power, dominion, and sovereignty on earth. These characteristics align with descriptions of Jesus the Christ in the Gospels. The sources argue that Jewish traditions between the time of Daniel and the Gospels further developed these ideas. At some point, the expectation of a return of a Davidic king merged with the vision of this divine figure from Daniel, leading to the concept of a divine-human Messiah. This figure then came to be named "Son of Man," referencing his origins in the divine figure who looked "like a Son of Man/a human being" in Daniel 7. Thus, the simile became the name for this divine figure, referring to his human-appearing divinity.
High Christology as an Intra-Jewish Concept: The sources argue strongly against the view that the idea of Jesus' divinity (high Christology) was a late, Gentile development entering Christianity from paganism, distinct from early Jewish belief. Instead, they contend that the earliest versions of high Christology emerged within a Jewish religious context. The sources propose that the Gospels only make sense if both Jesus and the Jews around him held to a high Christology where the claim to Messiahship was also a claim to being a divine man. The intense hostility Jesus faced from Jewish leaders who rejected his claim suggests a deeper controversy than mere disagreement over whether he was a human prophet or teacher. Claiming to be God or the divine Son of Man, as Jesus is portrayed, would have been a significant point of contention within Judaism, possibly viewed as blasphemy by those who did not accept his claim. This perspective suggests the belief in Jesus as God was not a radical break but rather a variant (though controversial) within existing Jewish expectations.
Jesus' Claim of Authority to Forgive Sins (Mark 2) as a Claim of Danielic Authority: The sources analyze the passage in Mark 2 where Jesus tells a paralytic his sins are forgiven, leading scribes to question, "Who can forgive sins except the one God?" Jesus then states, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins." The sources interpret this as a direct claim by Jesus (or the Markan portrayal of Jesus) to the authority delegated to the "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7:14. The term translated as "authority" in the New Testament is the same term used in the Septuagint to translate the Aramaic word for "sovereignty" or "dominion" given to the Danielic figure. Therefore, Jesus is claiming for the Son of Man precisely the sovereignty and authority on earth that the Danielic figure was granted. The scribes' objection calling this blasphemy is seen as recognizing Jesus' claim to divinity through this action, and Jesus' response is understood as affirming that the second divine figure of Daniel 7 is authorized to act as and for God, a declaration of a duality within the Godhead, which aligns with later Christian theology and was seen by some ancient Jews as "two powers in heaven."
Jesus' Claim of Lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2) as a Declaration of Messianic Sovereignty: Another key passage analyzed is Mark 2, where Jesus declares, "the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." This is linked to the earlier discussion of the Son of Man's authority derived from Daniel 7:14. The sources suggest this statement is a radical extension of existing Jewish halakhic (legal) discussions about when it is permissible to violate the Sabbath, particularly to save a life. While Jewish tradition (and later rabbinic literature) debated and often allowed violating the Sabbath for life-threatening situations, Jesus' claim that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath is interpreted as a claim of messianic sovereignty. Drawing on the analogy of David, who violated the Law (eating the bread of the Presence), Jesus, as the new David and the Son of Man, claims the authority to set aside or reinterpret parts of the Law. This is seen not as an attack on the Law itself, but as an apocalyptic declaration of a new moment in history where the Son of Man has been appointed lord over the Law, capable of making exceptions and extending the permission to violate the Sabbath (e.g., for healing) potentially to all humans, not just Jews, based on the Danielic figure's dominion over all nations.
Ancient Binitarianism in Israelite/Canaanite Religious History: The sources propose that the vision of two divine figures in Daniel 7 (Ancient of Days and the one like a Son of Man) is a "reconstructed relic" of a much older, ancient binitarian strand in Israelite religion, predating monotheistic reforms. This ancient pattern is compared to the relationship between the Canaanite gods 'El and Ba'al found in texts from Ugarit. 'El is depicted as an ancient, transcendent sky god, while Ba'al (or YHVH in the southern Hebrew tradition) is a younger, closer storm god of war. The sources suggest that in biblical religion, these two divinities were largely merged into one YHVH, creating a "tense and unstable monotheism" where the characteristics of the young divinity occasionally had the potential to split off. The Daniel 7 vision is seen as one manifestation of this ancient duality being resurrected or appearing, depicting an older God and a younger, human-appearing rider on the clouds figure who is given dominion. This ancient pattern of an older god and a younger god is seen as potentially transferring to new forms, where the younger god's functions are taken by figures like supreme angels, Redeemer figures, or eventually, the Son of Man. This deep history in ancient Israelite religion is presented as explaining the continuation of "binitarian" ideas (or the notion of "two powers in heaven") within later Judaism, including both rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, suggesting the theology of Father and Son in the Gospels is not a radical innovation but connected to these ancient traditions.