Source: Peter Schäfer, “Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity”, Princeton University Press.
The Son of Man Messiah David.wav
This podcast delves into how different Jewish texts interpret the plural "thrones" in Daniel 7:9, exploring a debate about whether it implies multiple divine figures. The Babylonian Talmud, particularly through the attributed words of Rabbi Aqiva, controversially suggests one throne is for God and the other for the Davidic Messiah, though this idea is ultimately refuted within the text. The Apocalypse of David, an early Jewish mystical work, presents a vision where David is enthroned in heaven near God, indicating a potentially binitarian (two powers) concept. The author also notes similar interpretations of Daniel 7:9 in early Christian writings by Ephrem the Syrian and John Chrysostom, who saw the two thrones as evidence of the relationship between God the Father and the Son (Jesus). The text suggests a possible, though not definitively proven, dialogue between these Jewish and Christian interpretations.
The Babylonian Talmud's Interpretation of Daniel 7:9: The sources highlight the unique approach of the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli), compared to Palestinian Judaism, in interpreting biblical passages. Specifically, the Bavli engages with Daniel 7:9, a verse describing "thrones" being set and an "Ancient of Days" taking his seat. The Bavli addresses an apparent contradiction within this single verse, which mentions "thrones" in the plural and immediately after refers to "His throne" (singular) being fiery flames. This linguistic puzzle is a central point of discussion within a specific section (sugya) of the Bavli, appearing in at least two versions, one in Hagigah 14a. The method involves analyzing seemingly contradictory verses or phrases and providing interpretations to reconcile them.
Rabbi Aqiva's Initial Interpretation of the 'Thrones': Within the Bavli's discussion of Daniel 7:9, a significant interpretation is attributed to Rabbi Aqiva. According to a baraita (a tradition supposedly from the tannaitic period, preceding the Bavli), Rabbi Aqiva explained the plural "thrones" by stating that one throne was for God (the Ancient of Days) and the other throne was for David. This interpretation resolves the apparent contradiction by suggesting that the verse is not solely about God's single throne but refers to two distinct figures, God and David, each having a throne.
Rabbinic Challenges and Alternative Interpretations: Rabbi Aqiva's bold interpretation of two thrones for God and David did not go unchallenged. Rabbi Yose the Galilean strongly opposed Aqiva, accusing him of profaning God's presence (Shekhinah) by suggesting a second figure enthroned alongside God. Yose proposed instead that the two thrones represented two different attributes or manifestations of the one God: a throne for justice (din) and a throne for mercy (tzedaqah). Later in the text, another Rabbi, Eleazar ben Azariah, is presented as rejecting both Aqiva's original view and Yose's explanation. Eleazar ben Azariah suggested a more radical interpretation: the plural "thrones" does not imply two full thrones at all, but rather refers to God's single throne and an accompanying footstool, drawing on Isaiah 66:1 ("The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footrest"). He criticized Aqiva severely for engaging in Haggadah (non-legalistic interpretation) when he should stick to legal matters (Halakhah) like Nega'im and Ohalot.
The Bavli Redactor's View and Rejection of Interpretations: The anonymous voice of the Bavli text guides the discussion through these interpretations. While initially presenting Aqiva's explanation (God and David) as a resolution to the plural/singular throne issue, the sugya then presents the challenges from Yose and Eleazar ben Azariah. The structure of the text suggests that the Bavli redactor ultimately favors the interpretation of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. This view, which sees the plural "thrones" as simply referring to God's one throne with its footstool, is presented as the final and most radical tempering of Aqiva's initial interpretation. The redactor is seen as deliberately structuring the sugya to first present Aqiva's view, then show how he "retracted" to Yose's view (justice/mercy), only to then reject both of these interpretations in favor of the throne-and-footstool explanation.
Identification of David as Messiah-King/Son of Man: The sources emphasize that David, in Rabbi Aqiva's interpretation of being enthroned next to God, is not meant as the earthly King David elevated after death, but rather as the Davidic Messiah-King. This figure is explicitly linked to the concept of the Son of Man from Daniel 7. The text suggests that citing Daniel 7:13 (where the Son of Man comes with clouds) is not even strictly necessary because a David elevated to a second throne next to God can hardly be anyone other than Daniel's Son of Man, especially considering the tradition history culminating in the New Testament depiction of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God. This interpretation makes Aqiva's view potentially dangerous from the Bavli redactor's perspective.
The Context of the 'Two Powers' Heresy: The Bavli places the discussion of Daniel 7:9 within a broader context of refuting "heretics" who interpreted plural forms in the Bible, such as the name Elohim or plural verbs used in relation to God, as evidence for the existence of multiple Gods or "two powers." The sugya in Sanhedrin 38b explicitly links the interpretation of Daniel 7:9 to this debate. Just as the rabbis counter interpretations of plural names/verbs implying multiple Gods by pointing to instances where God is referred to with singular verbs/names, the singular "His throne" following "thrones" in Daniel 7:9 is used to counter the idea of two figures (like God and David) by showing it refers to a single figure, the Ancient of Days. The text posits that those who read Daniel 7:9 as supporting a duality of two Gods are aligned with these same heretics who infer multiple Gods from other plural biblical forms.
The Apocalypse of David in Hekhalot Literature: Alongside the Bavli, the sources introduce another body of literature, the Hekhalot literature (early Jewish mysticism), which provides a parallel example of David being depicted in an exceptionally elevated position. The Apocalypse of David, found within this literature, describes a vision shown to Rabbi Ishmael. In this vision, David, the king of Israel, appears at the head of heavenly hosts and the kings of his house, wearing a magnificent crown. The text explicitly states that a throne of fire is prepared for David in the heavenly realm.
David's Elevated Status and Enthronement in the Apocalypse of David: The description of David in the Apocalypse of David paints a picture of near-divine status. His crown's splendor is compared to Metatron's crown and the splendor/dimensions of God's presence (Shekhinah) and limbs in other Hekhalot texts. The text states David is enthroned on a throne of fire, reminiscent of the Ancient of Days' throne in Daniel 7:9, and crucially, his throne is prepared "opposite the throne of his creator." This positioning next to God's throne directly parallels the interpretation attributed to Rabbi Aqiva in the Bavli. The sources suggest David is stylized here as Metatron and given attributes associated with a second God.
Tension and Potential Merging in the Apocalypse of David: Despite the depiction of David's exalted, godlike position enthroned next to God, the Apocalypse of David includes a climax where the entire cosmos, led by David and other heavenly beings (including Metatron and holy creatures), recites verses praising God as king. The final verse cited, Zechariah 14:9, ends with the affirmation that "on that day the Lord will be one and his name one." This creates an apparent tension: David is depicted as a second king in heaven, yet the text concludes by emphasizing God's sole kingship. One interpretation offered is that this tension might be resolved by concluding that at the end of days, the Messiah-King David and God will merge and become one, suggesting a form of binitarian idea developing into a potential monistic eschatological outcome.
Christian Interpretations of Daniel 7:9 and Potential Dialogue: The sources note that some Christian authors also interpreted Daniel 7:9 in a way that suggested two figures on thrones. Examples include Ephrem the Syrian and John Chrysostom from the 4th century CE. Ephrem interpreted the plural "thrones" as indicating that the Ancient of Days had a "throne companion and Son," identifying the Son of Man in Daniel 7 as this figure and applying it to Jesus. John Chrysostom similarly used Daniel 7:9-10 (the Son/God sitting, angels standing) to argue for the Father and Son's equality. These Christian interpretations are seen as highly theological, aiming to support the divinity of Jesus. The sources discuss the debate on whether these Christian interpretations developed independently or were in dialogue/polemic with Jewish interpretations of the same verse, suggesting that viewing them as models for potential dialogue is plausible and supports the understanding of Jewish sources grappling with similar ideas.