They are not a relic but represent, he believes,
actual contests from the first century, and as such,
they provide precious evidence that such halakhic discourse & reasoning was extant already then.
But that is not all there is here, of course. There are two elements
that mark off the Gospel mobilization of these arguments
from a purely halakhic controversy.
The first is that in both cases,
Jesus uses the argument itself and the halakhic itself is a sign of an ethical reading,
a kind of parable (called such explicitly in chapter 7); the second & most exciting is that the apocalyptic element of the Son of Man
is introduced here, as in the story of the paralytic, to bring home
the messianic nature, the divine-human nature,
of the sovereignty of Jesus
as the Son of Man
now on earth.
The comparison to David is, of course,
very pointed & does suggest that the Redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14 is indeed understood as the messi-anic king, son of David.
He finds here, therefore, clear evidence of identification of the Davidic Messiah with the Son of Man,
an identification that clearly does not require a human genealogical connection between the two,
for the Son of Man is a figure entirely heavenly
who becomes a human being.
He disagrees with the assumption
that the Davidic argument could only have been mobilized with messianic overtones,
given that we find it in rabbinic literature without such overtones & in a very similar context, namely,
as a justification for violating the Torah in a situation
in which there is a threat to life (even a very mild
such threat, such as a sore throat)!
There were other ancient Jews
from around the time of the earliest Gospel writings
who also read Daniel 7 in the way that we are suggesting that Jesus did.
On this reading, Mark's saying about the Son of Man being Lord of the Sabbath
is precisely a radical eschatological move, but not one that is constituted
by a step outside the broad community of Israelites
or even Jews.
If Daniel's vision is now being fulfilled
through the person of Jesus as the incarnation of the Son of Man,
some radical change is exactly what would be expected
during the end times.
The sovereign,
we are told by modern political theorists,
is the one who can make exceptions to the law when judged necessary or appropriate:
it is exactly for such judgments that the Son of Man
was given sovereignty.
The sovereignty
is expressed by extending
the permission granted to Jews
to violate the Sabbath to save the lives of other
Sabbath observers by Jesus
the Messiah to
INCLUDE ALL
HUMANS
...
they provide precious evidence that such halakhic discourse & reasoning was extant already then.
But that is not all there is here, of course. There are two elements
that mark off the Gospel mobilization of these arguments
from a purely halakhic controversy.
The first is that in both cases,
Jesus uses the argument itself and the halakhic itself is a sign of an ethical reading,
a kind of parable (called such explicitly in chapter 7); the second & most exciting is that the apocalyptic element of the Son of Man
is introduced here, as in the story of the paralytic, to bring home
the messianic nature, the divine-human nature,
of the sovereignty of Jesus
as the Son of Man
now on earth.
The comparison to David is, of course,
very pointed & does suggest that the Redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14 is indeed understood as the messi-anic king, son of David.
He finds here, therefore, clear evidence of identification of the Davidic Messiah with the Son of Man,
an identification that clearly does not require a human genealogical connection between the two,
for the Son of Man is a figure entirely heavenly
who becomes a human being.
He disagrees with the assumption
that the Davidic argument could only have been mobilized with messianic overtones,
given that we find it in rabbinic literature without such overtones & in a very similar context, namely,
as a justification for violating the Torah in a situation
in which there is a threat to life (even a very mild
such threat, such as a sore throat)!
There were other ancient Jews
from around the time of the earliest Gospel writings
who also read Daniel 7 in the way that we are suggesting that Jesus did.
On this reading, Mark's saying about the Son of Man being Lord of the Sabbath
is precisely a radical eschatological move, but not one that is constituted
by a step outside the broad community of Israelites
or even Jews.
If Daniel's vision is now being fulfilled
through the person of Jesus as the incarnation of the Son of Man,
some radical change is exactly what would be expected
during the end times.
The sovereign,
we are told by modern political theorists,
is the one who can make exceptions to the law when judged necessary or appropriate:
it is exactly for such judgments that the Son of Man
was given sovereignty.
The sovereignty
is expressed by extending
the permission granted to Jews
to violate the Sabbath to save the lives of other
Sabbath observers by Jesus
the Messiah to
INCLUDE ALL
HUMANS
...
22 jan 2013 - bewerkt op 22 jan 2013
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 02 jan 2026 50340 Volgens die uitspraak (Luke 9:44) zei Yesjoe
- O 02 jan 2026 50339 In déze en andere uitspraken uit de derde
- O 01 jan 2026 50338104 Mattai’s Versie van wat YESJ tegen Petrus
- O 01 jan 2026 50337/103 De opvatting dat YESJ dé eschatologische
- O 01 jan 2026 50336102/9: Mensen zoon dochter kind vriend taal?
- O 01 jan 2026 50335 De Slaven die naar deze Wijngaard gestuurd
- O 01 jan 2026 50334101Dit is ‘t brandpunt v/d botsing van Yesjoe
- O 31 dec 2025 50333100 Zelfs E. Meyer beschouwt dit visioen als
- O 31 dec 2025 50332 YESJ nam Sjim’on “Petra”, Yochanan & Ya’akov
- O 31 dec 2025 5033199 DOOR mij heb jij ‘t gezicht van Velen ver-
- O 31 dec 2025 50330 Pas sinds de ontdekking van de geschriften
- O 31 dec 2025 50329/98 Als YESJ als een Zoon was voor God, dan
- O 30 dec 2025 50328/97 Die charismatische vrome mannen geloofden
- O 30 dec 2025 50327/96 ÉÉN DING is echter zeker ook nú híer nòg
- O 30 dec 2025 50326 We zien dus duidelijk dat er ook al in deze