Tag: bible

PSALM 110:1: ADONI OR ADONAI?

The following is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 5: The Lamb upon His Throne: Jesus’ Divine Seat, Chapter 36: Sitting at God’s Right Hand, pp. 677-681.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

LORD, MY LORD, AND THE LORD

Before we discuss Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 in his answer to Caiaphas’s question, we need to discuss the different forms of the word “lord” as found in most English Bibles. The ESV translates verse 1, “The Lord says to my Lord,” as do several other modern versions (CSB, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT). Other English versions read almost identically: “The Lord says to my lord” (NABRE, NIV, NRSV, TNK). As we discussed earlier in this book (see especially pp. 469–70), where English Bibles have the title “Lord” (with small capital letters), this translates the Hebrew divine name YHWH, commonly represented in English as Jehovah or Yahweh. Thus, a more literal translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 110:1 would be “Yahweh says to my lord” (cf. ASV, LEB). The Septuagint reads, “The Lord [ho kyrios] said to my Lord [tō kyriō mou]” (Ps. 109:1 LXX), and this is how it is always quoted in the New Testament. It is also likely that Jesus used a form of the Aramaic word for “Lord” (mārēʾ) in place of YHWH when he quoted the verse aloud, as this was the conventional Jewish practice at the time. As Darrell Bock points out, “The minute such a substitution was made, the ambiguity would exist in Aramaic.”6 So don’t blame English versions for the two occurrences of “Lord.”

Unitarian apologist Anthony Buzzard leverages the use of ʾădōnî in the MT of Psalm 110:1 as one of his main arguments against the deity of Christ. He complains about translations that say “my Lord,” insisting that the word must be translated with a lower-case l, “my lord.” According to Buzzard, ʾădōnî should always be translated “lord” while ʾădōnāy should always be translated “Lord.” He goes so far as to assert, “The clarity and precision of the Hebrew text was marred by the ‘curse of the capital.’”7 Buzzard also especially reproaches “Trinitarian” authors who have erroneously stated that Psalm 110:1 uses the word ʾădōnāy and who infer from this mistaken premise that Psalm 110:1 explicitly identifies the future Messiah as God.8 Buzzard actually tries to argue in reverse, claiming that ʾădōnî is the form of the word for “lord” that “expressly tells us that the one so designated is not God, but a human superior.”9 In short, according to Buzzard, the fact that Psalm 110:1 calls the future Messiah (Jesus) ʾădōnî proves that Jesus is not God!

We have already thoroughly responded to Buzzard’s view of the title “Lord” in the New Testament, which focused on Acts 2:36 as his main proof text (see pp. 477–81). Here we will address his interpretation of Psalm 110:1, which will require a deep dive into the forms of the Hebrew noun. Buzzard’s argument presupposes that the distinction between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy predated the time of Jesus; indeed, his argument requires that the distinction was in place when Psalm 110 was written. This is definitely not the case with regard to the written text. We are not dealing with two different nouns. In ancient manuscripts, the noun as represented by these two standard forms ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy would appear exactly the same, with only what we would call the consonants, ʾDNY (אדני).10 Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left, so aleph [א [is the first letter [transliterated in English letters like this:ʾ]. By the way, the yodh [י[, not to be confused with the English transliteration of aleph, can express a consonantal sound or a vowel sound. That’s why you will see yodh transliterated sometimes with i and sometimes with y.) The full spellings on which Buzzard’s argument depends derive from the little marks, called vowel points, placed under or after the consonants in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Thus, ʾDNY becomes ʾaDoNY (ʾădōnî) and ʾaDoNāY (ʾădōnāy, or adonai).11 This distinction between the two forms is not represented in any visible way in ancient Hebrew texts. Looking at Psalm 110:1 in an ancient manuscript, you would see simply ʾDNY.

Buzzard knows this. He admits that the vowel points “were added much later than New Testament times.” However, he argues that the medieval Masoretic scribes who produced the Hebrew manuscripts (the MT) added the vowel points to preserve “how the text was read in the synagogues.” In other words, he claims that while the ancient manuscripts did not distinguish visually between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy, the Jews used these two different forms when reading or reciting aloud from the Hebrew text. Furthermore, Buzzard asserts that the result is absolutely reliable: “The Masoretes who faithfully pointed the Hebrew text with meticulous care distinguished between a nonDeity lord and the Deity who was the Lord God. . . . The Jews were almost fanatically careful in what they regarded as the sacred task of copying the scriptural text.”12

As one might expect, we do not have any way of knowing precisely when Jews began using the two different forms of ʾDNY when speaking the words of Scripture aloud. However, the dominant view in biblical scholarship is that the distinction probably arose long after Psalm 110 was written, and quite possibly after the period of the New Testament. In any case, the idea that the forms of this word were fixed in every occurrence from biblical times down to the Masoretic era is untenable. Even some of the reference works that Buzzard quotes in support of his view make this quite clear. For example, Buzzard quotes selectively from the entry on “Lord” in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons, but he omits (without an ellipsis) the following statements from the same pages he cites:

It is difficult to trace precisely this development from the use of ʾădōnāy as a title to its use as a name, because it cannot be excluded that the Hebrew text of the OT was edited according to new theological and liturgical insights. In the transmission of the text the final form of this name may have been used to replace older forms. . . . We have to reckon with the possibility mentioned above of editors changing the original text, e.g. its vocals, according to later principles.13

Buzzard even goes so far as to alter one of the entry’s sentences in a way that clearly changes its meaning. He quotes it as saying, “The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai [with long vowel], instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords.”14 The bracketed words “God is addressed” lead the reader to understand the dictionary to be explaining why people in Old Testament times addressed God with this particular form of the noun. However, what the entry says is this: “The reason why this is written ʾădōnāy instead of the normal ʾādôn, ʾădōnî, or ʾădōnāy may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords.”15 In context, the author was explaining why this particular written form of the word was adopted, some centuries after the Old Testament books were originally written.

In another reference work from which Buzzard quotes selectively, he omits the following statement in the same entry: “Original reading probably in all cases ʾadōnay.”16 That is, according to this reference work (a lexicon, which uses shortened sentence structure), the Hebrew text originally used ʾadōnay where it later, due to the editorial work of the Masoretes, distinguishes between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy.

There is something peculiar that follows from the claim that Psalm 110:1 was originally understood as expressing the word ʾădōnî to mean a “non-Deity lord” in contrast to ʾădōnāy. In the MT, the word ʾădōnî occurs 278 times, including Psalm 110:1. Yet it occurs nowhere else in the Psalms (the longest book of the Bible) or in any of the other wisdom books of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes). On the other hand, in the MT, the Psalms uses the word ʾădōnāy 54 times. These statistics don’t prove what the word originally meant in Psalm 110:1, but they do raise some doubt about the claim that Psalm 110:1 originally expressed the specific form of the noun found in the MT and did so in order to deny that the future Messiah would be deity.

According to Buzzard, “There should be no need to have to argue that the Hebrew Masoretic text is correct in Psalm 110:1. There is not a shred of evidence of corruption of the text here.”17 However, just a dozen pages earlier, Buzzard had expressed his approval of the Septuagint wording of Psalm 110:3b, which he quotes as follows: “From the womb, before the morning star, did I beget you” (see Ps. 109:3b LXX).18 If this wording of verse 3 is correct, though, it means the Masoretes failed to preserve the correct wording, because in the MT Psalm 110:3b says something like, “From the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours”! Besides the reference to the dew (which is in the Hebrew text but not in the Greek text), the main difference here is that the Hebrew consonantal word YLDTYK can be given vowel points to say “your youth” (yaldūteykā, as in the Hebrew MT) or “I have begotten you” (yelidtîykā, as translated in Psalm 109:3 LXX, exegennēsa se, cf. Ps. 2:7).19

There are significant textual variants even among the medieval Hebrew manuscripts in Psalm 110:3. For example, the MT in the first part of verse 3 refers to “holy garments” (hadrê qōdeš, see ESV, NLT; cf. LEB, NASB, NIV), while other medieval Hebrew manuscripts as well as some ancient witnesses to the text have “holy mountains” (harrê qōdeš, see NRSV, cf. NET).20 In this instance, the variant is not merely a difference in vowel pointing, but in the consonantal text itself. The bottom line is that serious biblical scholars, while they greatly respect the MT, do not take it as absolute, let alone profess to do so where convenient while elsewhere preferring alternate texts, as Buzzard does with Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:3.

Buzzard’s whole line of argument here proceeds from the false premise that if the Bible describes the Messiah in human, non-divine terms, this means he cannot be divine. In orthodox Christian theology, Jesus the Messiah is both human and divine. The divine Son came into the world as a mortal human, lived, died, and rose from the dead. Biblical affirmations of the humanity of the Messiah are a feature, not a bug, from an orthodox perspective. Likewise, the fact that Psalm 110:1 refers to the Father as Yahweh and the Son as “my lord” is no more problematic theologically than the New Testament practice of using “God” for the Father and such titles as “Christ” for Jesus (see pp. 677–81).

As for Buzzard’s assertion that Psalm 110:1 should be translated with “my lord” rather than “my Lord,” many translators and commentators already take this position. They would agree with him that since ʾădōnî is regularly translated “my lord” elsewhere in the Old Testament, we should do so also in Psalm 110:1, assuming we are translating the MT. This is a respectable position, though it does not justify Buzzard’s inflamed rhetoric. There is another side to this issue, however. This is not just anyone who is being addressed as “my lord.” Whoever this figure is, he is being invited to sit at God’s right hand and to rule as a king and priest forever (110:1, 4). As Jesus argued, that makes this figure greater than David; it makes him greater than any other human. Read in this way, the form of address found in Psalm 110:1 goes far beyond the ordinary courtesies of ancient cultural conventions in which someone politely addresses a king or other authority figure as “my lord.”

From a New Testament perspective, ultimately Psalm 110:1 pointed ahead beyond any Old Testament king to the one whom the New Testament calls “the Lord Jesus” or “the Lord Jesus Christ.” If we translate Psalm 110:1 as part of the whole canon of Scripture, it is not wrong to capitalize “Lord” in this context. We turn, then, to consider whether this New Testament perspective is a valid way of reading Psalm 110.

6. Bock, “Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial,” 81.

7. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 162.

8. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 157–61. Buzzard’s most notable example of a scholarly work making this mistake is Louis A. Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2:73.

9. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 158.

10. In one instance, ădônāy is spelled with the consonant vav, also called waw (ו), in the middle, functioning like the vowel o (Judg. 13:8).

11. The root noun ʾădōn (אדנ (or ʾādôn (אדונ (occurs 44 times in the OT, 20 times meaning a human lord or master (Ps. 105:21; Jer. 22:18; 34:5) and 24 times the Lord God (e.g., Josh. 3:11, 13; Pss. 97:5; 114:7; Zech. 4:14; 6:5). With the definite article, hāʾādōn or hāʾădōn, the title always means “the Lord,” that is, God (8 times).

12. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 168, 172.

13. Klaas Spronk, “Lord,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 531, 532.

14. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 174–75, bracketed words Buzzard’s.

15. Spronk, “Lord,” 532, emphasis added. 16. BDB, s.v. ʾādôn, 10; cf. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 174.

17. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 173.

18. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 161. Buzzard claims quite implausibly that Psalm 109:3 LXX means that God “begat” the Messiah when Jesus was born of a virgin. The text says that the Messiah was begotten before the “morning star” or perhaps the “morning,” which is more consistent with his preexistence (see above, chaps. 10–12).

19. Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Revised Edition), vol. 5: Psalms, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 815.

20. See NET Bible, 2nd ed. (2019), Ps. 110:3 n.

This next excerpt is from pp. 687-689.

SITTING AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND IN HEAVEN

There are, of course, many other passages in the Old Testament (especially though by no means exclusively in the Psalms) that point forward in various ways to the Messiah. However, Psalm 110 is unique in speaking of the Davidic king (with the Messiah as the full realization of this picture) as sitting at Yahweh’s right hand. A few texts speak of Solomon sitting on the throne of Yahweh (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8), while others speak of Yahweh sitting enthroned in Zion (Ps. 9:7, 11) or of Jerusalem or the temple as his throne (Jer. 3:17; Ezek. 43:4–7). The Old Testament also occasionally speaks of Yahweh being “enthroned on the cherubim,” that is, sitting on or between the images of the cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:22; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; Pss. 80:1; 99:1). Yet nowhere except in Psalm 110:1 does the Old Testament picture Yahweh and the human king sitting enthroned side by side.

More commonly, the Old Testament pictures God’s “throne” as being in heaven (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18; Pss. 11:4; 33:13–14; 97:1–2, 9; 103:19; 113:4–6; 123:1; Isa. 66:1). Psalm 2, a text that in other respects has several clear verbal and thematic parallels to Psalm 110, actually contrasts Yahweh sitting enthroned in heaven (Ps. 2:4) with the Davidic king sitting on his throne in Zion (2:6).

Evidently, Jesus drew on Psalm 110:1 in his response to Caiaphas because it said something that went beyond what more conventional messianic passages said. While in a purely metaphorical, typological sense, Psalm 110:1 might be read as saying that Solomon or other Davidic kings sat at God’s “right hand” on the throne in Jerusalem, Jesus took the statement in its fullest possible sense—that he was actually going to be ruling alongside God in heaven. Indeed, had Jesus claimed that he was going to rule as Messiah from Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin would not have considered such a claim blasphemous (though presumably they would have vociferously disagreed). Many if not most Jews hoped for a messianic king who would do just that.

On the other hand, Caiaphas probably would not have deemed it blasphemous for Jesus to claim he was going to enter God’s presence in heaven. The Old Testament reported that other human beings had done so without even dying (notably Enoch and Elijah). “The possibility of a heavenly abode offended no Jew who believed in an afterlife for the righteous.”42 However, to sit at God’s right side, meaning alongside God in heaven, was another matter altogether. In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus, to claim to be a king who would sit at God’s right hand in heaven was tantamount to claiming equality with God.

As we explained earlier in this chapter, Jewish literature during the general time period of the New Testament also does not speak of any human or angelic creature sitting alongside God in heaven. There are texts that picture some figure, such as Moses or (possibly) Enoch, sitting on God’s throne, and we will discuss these references in the next chapter. However, even these texts do not speak of such figures sitting at God’s right hand in heaven. As best we can tell, this element of Jesus’ statement was unprecedented.

We may illustrate the point with the story of the King of Siam and Anna, the nineteenth-century English schoolteacher hired to teach his children, most memorably told in Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein’s musical The King and I. Anna flouts Siamese court protocol by barging into the king’s throne room unannounced, standing in the king’s presence when he is sitting, or by sitting with her head as high or higher than the king. Protocol required that all subjects of the king were to keep their heads lower than his at all times. This sort of royal protocol was well understood (and usually scrupulously observed) in most cultures until the rise of democracy in modern times—the very cultural shift celebrated in The King and I. For Jesus to claim that he would sit at God’s right hand was akin to claiming, in what used to be called an “Oriental” cultural context, that he would be entitled to have his head as high as that of the king.

Jesus, then, was claiming the right to go directly into God’s “throne room” and sit at his side. The temerity of such a claim for any mere human would be astonishing to the Jews of Jesus’ day.43 The priests of the Sanhedrin, to whom Jesus made this claim, could not, as a rule, even go into the inner sanctum of the temple, known as the holy of holies. Many of them had probably never been inside it. The holy of holies could only be entered on a specific day in specific ways by one specific person. Failure to follow instructions resulted in death. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies with a bull to sacrifice for personal purification and a ram to burn for atonement. This was followed by a change of garments and ritual washings (Lev. 16:3–5). In other words, God’s presence in the temple was entered cautiously.

If entrance requirements to the earthly holy of holies were so strict, we can imagine what the Sanhedrin priests would have thought about Jesus claiming he would enter God’s heavenly sanctuary. Worse still, Jesus claimed he would enter the heavenly holies of holies and sit down. As Darrell Bock puts it, Jesus’ claim “would be worse, in the leadership’s view, than claiming the right to be able to walk into the holy of holies in the earthly temple and live there.”44 His statement amounted to claiming that he owned the place!

42. Darrell L. Bock, “Jesus as Blasphemer,” in Who Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, LNTS 327 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 78.

43. What follows in the rest of this paragraph and in the next is essentially repeated from Komoszeswki, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, 178.

44. Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 375.

45. Richard Bauckham, “The Power and the Glory: The Rendering of Psalm 110:1 in Mark 14:62,” in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of G. K. Beale, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Gladd (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 83.

FURTHER READING

PSALM 110 IN EARLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Examining Psalm 110:1 — A look at Its Implications on God being a Multi-Personal Being and upon the Deity of Christ

Psalm 110:1 – Another Clear Testimony to Christ’s Deity Pt. 1

The Binitarian Nature of the Shema [Part 1]

DAVID’S MULTI-PERSONAL LORD PT. 2

APPEARANCE OF THE TRINITY TO ABRAHAM AND DAVID PT. 3

Revisiting the implications that Psalm 110 has on the divine identity of the Messiah Pt. 1

Solomon Was Not David’s Lord! Psalm 110:1 Revisited… Again!

JESUS CHRIST: THE LORD AND THE LORD’S SON

THE KING OF ISRAEL IS THE KING OF THE NATIONS

Daniel’s Dyadic Monotheism

The prophet Daniel saw a vision where he beheld two distinct divine Persons reigning forever over the entire world, where all nations and peoples in all languages worshiped them both:

“As I looked, ‘thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened… In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped (yipelachun) him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed… Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High (elyonin). His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship (yipelachun) and obey him.’ Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14, 27 New International Version (NIV)

The Aramaic word elyonin is plural and literally means “Most Highs/Highest Ones.” It is apparent from the context that the plural is an obvious reference to the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man, since they both reign over all creation together and forever.

The following expositor brings out the significance of Daniel’s imagery and its implication the complex nature of the one true God of Israel:

“The imagery of clouds in this scene is significant… But by far, its most frequent association is with theophanies–that is, appearances of God. Fifty-eight of the eighty-seven occurrences of anan appear in the context of God’s presence.63 The Pentateuch, especially, speaks of visible manifestations of YHWH’s glory in the cloud atop Sinai and over the tent of meeting (e.g., Exod 24:16; 40:34-35), and his presence in the pillar of cloud guides the people through the wilderness (e.g., Num 14:14; Deut 31:15). Later texts about the temple also refer to the cloud (1 Kgs 8:11; Ezek 10:4).      

“But it is not just the presence of clouds in Dan 7 that is significant–we already know YHWH (the Ancient of Days) is present in the throne room (see above on 7:9-10). What is particularly significant about the clouds in Dan 7 is that someone is coming with them (7:13b). Those of us outside of Daniel’s context may well picture someone floating into the throne room on a billowy heap of clouds,64 but this is probably not what Daniel would have seen. In Daniel’s ancient Near Eastern context, he would have seen someone riding the clouds like a chariot. The Old Testament speaks of YHWH riding his cloud chariot through the heavens (Ps 104:3; cf. Ps 65:5[4] where the rider imagery is present without specifying the clouds), and the prophets speak of YHWH riding a cloud in judgment (Isa 19:1; cf. Jer 4:13; Nah 1:3). In the wider Canaanite world, the storm god Baal, was the Rider of the Clouds who controlled the weather and thus agricultural fertility. Armed with a bolt of lightning, he bestowed rain on faithful worshipers. In Ugarit, a fifteenth-century-BCE city-state on the Syrian coast north of Israel, Baal was the divine hero who had defeated Yamm in the sea god’s attempt to become god over the pantheon. Baal’s victory won him kingship among the gods, and he served as vice-regent under his father, the high god El, an aged wise figure who presided over the world and was attended by a divine council.      

“Do not miss what is happening in Daniel’s vision. There is a fiery scene surrounding YHWH, seated on the throne, and there is a cloud with someone riding on it. In the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who rides the clouds. In this single vision, there are two YHWH figures: the Ancient of Days on the throne and the cloud-riding YHWH receiving the eternal right to rule. Daniel was seeing two powers in heaven–the one on the throne and a vice-regent, sharing YHWH’s essence and receiving everlasting dominion and power.

“Daniel’s vision of the throne room provides a stunning portrayal of the divine council in Israelite theology, as well as highlighting its most significant difference from other divine councils of the ancient Near East. In the Canaanite divine council, the Rider of the Clouds was El’s vice-regent and received eternal right to rule when he defeated Yamm. But Baal was a different god than El. In the Israelite divine council, however, the vice-regent position ‘was not filled by another god, but by Yahweh himself in another form. This “hypostasis” of Yahweh was the same essence as Yahweh but a distinct, second person.’65 Israel’s divine council was headed by YHWH (El/Elohim), but its vice-regent shared the essence of YHWH. This has profound implications for understanding monotheism according to the Old Testament. Israel’s divine council had a ‘second person’ sharing YHWH’s essence–exactly what was needed to understand Jesus’ claim to be one with the Father in the New Testament.66” (Wendy Widder, Daniel: A Discourse Analysis of the Hebrew Bible (23) (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament), Daniel L. Block (general editor) [Zondervan Academic, 2023], pp. 378-380; emphasis mine)

And:

“Perhaps the second reason ‘the Son of Man’ was Jesus’ favorite title is because it is in Daniel’s vision of ch. 7 that we find the clearest Old Testament picture of the divine council and in it, Jesus’ relationship to YHWH–probably the truth about him that his listeners had the hardest time grasping and accepting. In Daniel’s vision of the Israelite divine council, YHWH sat at the head of the council but shared his essence with a second power that was a distinct figure,142 to whom he gave everlasting dominion and power. This portrayal of the divine council shows that the Old Testament ‘monotheism’ had room for a ‘second person.’ Perhaps sending his listeners back to the vision of Dan 7 was Jesus’s repeated invitation for people to recognize him as that second person, to understand and believe that he was one with the Father (see the discussion above, pp. 378-380).143    

“We know that at least Jesus’s educated audience understood what he was doing in claiming to be ‘the Son of Man.’ We know this because they charged him with blasphemy when he used the title at his trial. Jesus told the Sanhedrin, ‘In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven’ (Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), a clear reference to Dan 7:13, and they all heard him claim to share the essence of the Father,144 the one who would ultimately exalt him and give him the everlasting kingdom. It was not a claim they could– or would–tolerate; they demanded his death.”

142. Any discussion of the nature of the Trinity ventures into a field of heretical landmines. Jesus will identify himself as the great “I Am,” which means he too is YHWH of the Old Testament; that is, “YHWH” is not simply God the Father, but all of the Godhead in singular reference. What we can say (without falling into heresy) is that there is an internal complexity within God that was not altogether apparent in the Old Testament. Jesus can be both distinguished from God and also identified as God

144. The language of “essence” is loaded with later patristic theological value, but for our purposes, it means that the New Testament religious leaders understood Jesus to be claiming a specialized and exclusive relationship with God that put him on a par with him. Jesus was claiming an ontological share in the identity of Israel’s God. (Ibid., pp. 398-399; emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

EARLY CHURCH & DANIEL’S MESSIANISM

Appearances of Christ in Daniel

Daniel’s Son of Man as the Messiah

The Son of Man Rides the Clouds Pt. 1aPt. 1bPt. 2aPt. 2b

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

EARLY CHURCH & DANIEL’S MESSIANISM

In this post I will be citing the exegesis of two outstanding early Christian figures in respect to particular verses in Daniel which directly relate to Christ and the Trinity. All emphasis will be mine.

I begin with Irenaeus’ views on the fourth figure in the fiery whom Nebuchadnezzar saw and the one like a Son of Man that Daniel beheld.

11. If, then, neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, who had all many celestial visions, saw God; but if what they did see were similitudes of the splendour of the Lord, and prophecies of things to come; it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, No man has seen God at any time. John 1:18 But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father’s brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said: The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him]; and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel. For at one time He was seen with those who were around Ananias, Azarias, Misaël, as present with them in the furnace of fire, in the burning, and preserving them from [the effects of] fire: And the appearance of the fourth, it is said, was like to the Son of GodDaniel 3:26 

At another time [He is represented as] a stone cut out of the mountain without hands, Daniel 7:13-14 and as smiting all temporal kingdoms, and as blowing them away (ventilans ea), and as Himself filling all the earth. Then, too, is this same individual beheld as the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, and drawing near to the Ancient of Days, and receiving from Him all power and glory, and a kingdom. His dominion, it is said, is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom shall not perishDaniel 7:4 John also, the Lord’s disciple, when beholding the sacerdotal and glorious advent of His kingdom, says in the Apocalypse: I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And, being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the candlesticks One like the Son of man, clothed with a garment reaching to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle; and His head and His hairs were white, as white as wool, and as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire; and His feet like fine brass, as if He burned in a furnace. And His voice [was] as the voice of waters; and He had in His right hand seven stars; and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword; and His countenance was as the sun shining in his strength. Revelation 1:12 For in these words He sets forth something of the glory [which He has received] from His Father, as [where He makes mention of] the head; something in reference to the priestly office also, as in the case of the long garment reaching to the feet. And this was the reason why Moses vested the high priest after this fashion. Something also alludes to the end [of all things], as [where He speaks of] the fine brass burning in the fire, which denotes the power of faith, and the continuing instant in prayer, because of the consuming fire which is to come at the end of time. But when John could not endure the sight (for he says, I fell at his feet as dead; Revelation 1:17 that what was written might come to pass: No man sees God, and shall live Exodus 33:20), and the Word reviving him, and reminding him that it was He upon whose bosom he had leaned at supper, when he put the question as to who should betray Him, declared: I am the first and the last, and He who lives, and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of death and of hell

And after these things, seeing the same Lord in a second vision, he says: For I saw in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. Revelation 5:6 And again, he says, speaking of this very same Lamb: And behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True; and in righteousness does He judge and make war. And His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; having a name written, that no man knows but Himself: and He was girded around with a vesture sprinkled with blood: and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in pure white linen. And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He may smite the nations; and He shall rule (pascet) them with a rod of iron: and He treads the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of God Almighty. And He has upon His vesture and upon His thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Revelation 19:11-17 Thus does the Word of God always preserve the outlines, as it were, of things to come, and points out to men the various forms (species), as it were, of the dispensations of the Father, teaching us the things pertaining to God. (Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 20 That one God formed all things in the world, by means of the Word and the Holy Spirit: and that although he is to us in this life invisible and incomprehensible, nevertheless he is not unknown; inasmuch as his works do declare him, and his Word has shown that in many modes he may be seen and known.)

I next quote Hippolytus’ interpretation on the divine figure seen by Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel not just in Daniel 3 and 7, but also in chapter 10. He also deals with the Messianic timetable outlined in Daniel 9. Also, this great saint of the Church likened Mary’s body to the Ark of the covenant.  

3. As these things, then, are destined to come to pass, and as the toes of the image turn out to be democracies, and the ten horns of the beast are distributed among ten kings, let us look at what is before us more carefully, and scan it, as it were, with open eye. The golden head of the image is identical with the lioness, by which the Babylonians were represented. The golden shoulders and the arms of silver are the same with the bear, by which the Persians and Medes are meant. The belly and thighs of brass are the leopard, by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended. The legs of iron are the dreadful and terrible beast, by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant. The toes of clay and iron are the ten horns which are to be. The one other little horn springing up in their midst is the antichrist. The stone that smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world.

4. But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works. For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they shall reign with Christ, when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: five are fallen; one is, that is, the sixth; the other is not yet come.

5. In mentioning the other, moreover, he specifies the seventh, in which there is rest. But some one may be ready to say, How will you prove to me that the Saviour was born in the year 5500? Learn that easily, O man; for the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled. For He says to him, And you shall make the ark of imperishable wood, and shall overlay it with pure gold within and without; and you shall make the length of it two cubits and a half, and the breadth thereof one cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half the height;  which measures, when summed up together, make five cubits and a half, so that the 5500 years might be signified thereby.

6. At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the ark overlaid with pure gold, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the ark made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: Now it was the sixth hour, he says, intimating by that, one-half of the day. But a day with the Lord is 10000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of the law still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life…

12. After his confession and supplication, the angel says to him, You are a man greatly beloved: for you desire to see things of which you shall be informed by me; and in their own time these things will be fulfilled; and he touched me, saying, Seventy weeks are determined upon your people, and upon the holy city, to seal up sins and to blot out transgressions, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy; and you shall know and understand, that from the going forth of words for the answer, and for the building of Jerusalem, unto Christ the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.

13. Having mentioned therefore seventy weeks, and having divided them into two parts, in order that what was spoken by him to the prophet might be better understood, he proceeds thus, Unto Christ the Prince shall be seven weeks, which make forty-nine years. It was in the twenty-first year that Daniel saw these things in Babylon. Hence, the forty-nine years added to the twenty-one, make up the seventy years, of which the blessed Jeremiah spoke: The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years from the captivity that befell them under Nebuchadnezzar; and after these things the people will return, and sacrifice and offering will be presented, when Christ is their Prince.

14. Now of what Christ does he speak, but of Jesus the son of Josedech, who returned at that time along with the people, and offered sacrifice according to the law, in the seventieth year, when the sanctuary was built? For all the kings and priests were styled Christs, because they were anointed with the holy oil, which Moses of old prepared. These, then, bore the name of the Lord in their own persons, showing aforetime the type, and presenting the image until the perfect King and Priest appeared from heaven, who alone did the will of the Father; as also it is written in Kings: And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do all things according to my heart.

15. In order, then, to show the time when He is to come whom the blessed Daniel desired to see, he says, And after seven weeks there are other threescore and two weeks, which period embraces the space of 434 years. For after the return of the people from Babylon under the leadership of Jesus the son of Josedech, and Ezra the scribe, and Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of David, there were 434 years unto the coming of Christ, in order that the Priest of priests might be manifested in the world, and that He who takes away the sins of the world might be evidently set forth, as John speaks concerning Him: Behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world! And in like manner Gabriel says: To blot out transgressions, and make reconciliation for sins. But who has blotted out our transgressions? Paul the apostle teaches us, saying, He is our peace who made both one; and then, Blotting out the handwriting of sins that was against us.

16. That transgressions, therefore, are blotted out, and that reconciliation is made for sins, is shown by this. But who are they who have reconciliation made for their sins, but they who believe in His name, and propitiate His countenance by good works? And that after the return of the people from Babylon there was a space of 434 years, until the time of the birth of Christ, may be easily understood. For, since the first covenant was given to the children of Israel after a period of 434 years, it follows that the second covenant also should be defined by the same space of time, in order that it might be expected by the people and easily recognised by the faithful.

17. And for this reason Gabriel says: And to anoint the Most Holy. And the Most Holy is none else but the Son of God alone, who, when He came and manifested Himself, said to them, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me;  and so forth. Whosoever, therefore, believed on the heavenly Priest, were cleansed by that same Priest, and their sins were blotted out. And whosoever believe it not on Him, despising Him as a man, had their sins sealed, as those which could not be taken away; whence the angel, foreseeing that not all should believe in Him, said, To finish sins, and to seal up sins. For as many as continued to disbelieve Him, even to the end, had their sins not finished, but sealed to be kept for judgment. But as many as will believe in Him as One able to remit sins, have their sins blotted out. Wherefore he says: And to seal up vision and prophet.

22. For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ has come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such.

23. He says then: In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a word was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was Belshazzar; and the word was true, and great power and understanding were given him in the vision. In those days I Daniel was mourning three weeks of days. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three weeks of days were fulfilled. On the fourth day of the first month I humbled myself, says he, one and twenty days, praying to the living God, and asking of Him the revelation of the mystery. And the Father in truth heard me, and sent His own Word, to show what should happen by Him. And that took place, indeed, by the great river. For it was meet that the Son should be manifested there, where also He was to remove sins.

24. And I lifted up my eyes, he says, and, behold, a man clothed in linen. In the first vision he says, Behold, the angel Gabriel (was) sent. Here, however, it is not so; but he sees the Lord, not yet indeed as perfect man, but with the appearance and form of man, as he says: And, behold, a man clothed in linen. For in being clothed in a various-colored coat, he indicated mystically the variety of the graces of our calling. For the priestly coat was made up of different colors, as various nations waited for Christ’s coming, in order that we might be made up (as one body) of many colors. And his loins were girded with the gold of Ophaz.

25. Now the word Ophaz, which is a word transferred from Hebrew to Greek, denotes pure gold. With a pure girdle, therefore, he was girded round the loins. For the Word was to bear us all, binding us like a girdle round His body, in His own love. The complete body was His, but we are members in His body, united together, and sustained by the Word HimselfAnd his body was like Tharses. Now Tharses, by interpretation, is Ethiopians. For that it would be difficult to recognise Him, the prophet had thus already announced beforehand, intimating that He would be manifested in the flesh in the world, but that many would find it difficult to recognise HimAnd his face as lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire; for it was meet that the fiery and judicial power of the Word should be signified aforetime, in the exercise of which He will cause the fire (of His judgment) to light with justice upon the impious, and consume them.

26. He added also these words: And his arms and his feet like polished brass; to denote the first calling of men, and the second calling like it, viz. of the GentilesFor the last shall be as the first; for I will set your rulers as at the beginning, and your leaders as before. And His voice was as the voice of a great multitude. For all we who believe in Him in these days utter things oracular, as speaking by His mouth the things appointed by Him. (Hippolytus, Some Exegetical Fragments of Hippolytus, Second fragment (Of the visions))

And:

47. And the flame streamed forth. The fire, he means, was driven from within by the angel, and burst forth outwardly. See how even the fire appears intelligent, as if it recognised and punished the guilty. For it did not touch the servants of God, but it consumed the unbelieving and impious Chaldeans. Those who were within were besprinkled with a (cooling) dew by the angel, while those who thought they stood in safety outside the furnace were destroyed by the fire. The men who cast in the youths were burned by the flame, which caught them on all sides, as I suppose, when they went to bind the youths.

92 (i.e., 25). And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, when did you see the Son of God, that you should confess that this is the Son of God? And who pricked your heart, that you should utter such a word? And with what eyes were you able to look into this light? And why was this manifested to you alone, and to none of the satraps about you? But, as it is written, The heart of a king is in the hand of God: the hand of God is here, whereby the Word pricked his heart, so that he might recognise Him in the furnace, and glorify Him. And this idea of ours is not without good ground. For as the children of Israel were destined to see God in the world, and yet not to believe in Him, the Scripture showed beforehand that the Gentiles would recognise Him incarnate, whom, while not incarnate, Nebuchadnezzar saw and recognised of old in the furnace, and acknowledged to be the Son of God.

93 (i.e., 26). And he said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The three youths he thus called by name. But he found no name by which to call the fourth. For He was not yet that Jesus born of the Virgin.

97 (i.e., 30). Then the king promoted, etc. For as they honoured God by giving themselves up to death, so, too, they were themselves honoured not only by God, but also by the king. And they taught strange and foreign nations also to worship God…

13 And came to the Ancient of days. By the Ancient of days he means none other than the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself, who makes the days old, and yet becomes not old Himself by times and days.

14. His dominion is an everlasting dominion. The Father, having put all things in subjection to His own Son, both things in heaven and things on earth, showed Him forth by all as the first-begotten of God, in order that, along with the Father, He might be approved the Son of God before angels, and be manifested as the Lord also of angels: (He showed Him forth also as) the first-begotten of a virgin, that He might be seen to be in Himself the Creator anew of the first-formed Adam, (and) as the first-begotten from the dead, that He might become Himself the first-fruits of our resurrection.

Which shall not pass away. He exhibited all the dominion given by the Father to His own Son, who is manifested as King of all in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and as Judge of all: of all in heaven, because He was born the Word, of the heart of the Father before all; and of all in earth, because He was made man, and created Adam anew of Himself; and of all under the earth, because He was also numbered among the dead, and preached to the souls of the saints, (and) by death overcame death.

17. Which shall arise. For when the three beasts have finished their course, and been removed, and the one still stands in vigour — if this one, too, is removed, then finally earthly things (shall) end, and heavenly things begin; that the indissoluble and everlasting kingdom of the saints may be brought to view, and the heavenly King manifested to all, no longer in figure, like one seen in vision, or revealed in a pillar of cloud upon the top of a mountain, but amid the powers and armies of angels, as God incarnate and man, Son of God and Son of man— coming from heaven as the world’s Judge…

22. Until the Ancient of days come. That is, when at length the Judge of judges and the King of kings comes from heaven, who shall subvert the whole dominion and power of the adversary, and shall consume all with the eternal fire of punishment. But to His servants, and prophets, and martyrs, and to all who fear Him, He will give an everlasting kingdom; that is, they shall possess the endless enjoyment of good.

Daniel 10:6 And the voice of His words. For all we who now believe in Him declare the words of Christ, as if we spoke by His mouth the things enjoined by Him.

7. And I saw, etc. For it is to His saints that fear Him, and to them alone, that He reveals Himself. For if any one seems to be living now in the Church, and yet has not the fear of God, his companionship with the saints will avail him nothing. (Ibid., Third fragment (Scholia on Daniel))

FURTHER READING

Appearances of Christ in Daniel

Daniel’s Son of Man as the Messiah

The Son of Man Rides the Clouds Pt. 1a, Pt. 1b, Pt. 2a, Pt. 2b

MESSIANIC TIMELINE OF DANIEL REVISITED AGAIN

A Justification of the Translation of Dan. 9:24-27 in the KJV

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1, Pt. 2

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

CHRIST’S TITLES IN REV. 1-3

In this post I will demonstrate how the characteristics and functions attributed to Christ in Revelation 1 are either repeated or paralleled with the names and descriptions made about the risen Lord at the start of every exhortations and/or warnings to the seven churches, that John was commanded to write and send his scroll to. These messages to the seven churches are found in in chapters 2-3.   

FIRST EXAMPLE

“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler (ho archon) of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood.” 1:5

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: This is what the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning (he arche) of the creation of God, says… ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.’” 3:14, 21

It is clear that the terms archon and arche are meant to parallel one another, especially since later in the context of chapt. 3 Christ states that he will grant all those who conquer to be seated with him on his throne (Cf. 2:26-28). This, therefore, indicates that arche can also be rendered as “ruler,” i.e., Jesus is the Ruler of God’s creation, which is precisely how some versions render the expression (Cf. CEB, CJB, ERV, EHV, EXB, NCV, NIV, ).

SECOND EXAMPLE

and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.” 1:13

“and having in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp two-edged sword which comes out of His mouth, and His face was like the sun shining in its power.” 1:16

“As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” 1:20

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: This is what the One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says:” 2:1

THIRD EXAMPLE

“And His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters,” 1:14-15

“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: This is what the Son of God, the One who has eyes like a flame of fire and His feet are like burnished bronze, says:” 2:18

FOURTH EXAMPLE

“and having in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp two-edged sword which comes out of His mouth, and His face was like the sun shining in its power.” 1:16

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: This is what the One who has the sharp two-edged sword says… Therefore repent. But if not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.” 2:12, 16

FIFTH EXAMPLE

“And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, ‘Do not fear; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.’” 1:17-18

“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: This is what the first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says:” 2:8

SIXTH EXAMPLE

“and having in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp two-edged sword which comes out of His mouth, and His face was like the sun shining in its power.” 1:16

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: This is what He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says:” 3:1

SEVENTH EXAMPLE

“and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” 1:18

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: This is what He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says:” 3:7

All scriptural references taken from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB),

FURTHER READING

REV. 3:14 REVISITED… ONE MORE TIME!