true colors {shining through}

The objection of the Scribes, calling Yeshua's act of forgiveness "blasphemy," is predicated on their assumption that Yeshu is claiming divinity through his action; hence their emphasis that only the ONE G d may forgive sins, to which Yeshua answers in kind: the second divine figure of Daniel 7, the one like a son of man, is authorized to act as and for G d. This constitutes a direct declaration of a doubleness of the Godhead, which is, of course, later on the very hallmark of Christian theology.

Throughout the Gospel, whenever Yeshu claims esonoia to perform that which appears to be the prerogative of the divinity, it is that very esonoia of the Son of Man that is being claimed, which is to say, a scriptural authority based on a very close reading of Daniel 7. We see now why the later Rabbis, in naming this ancient religious view a heresy, refer to it as "two powers in heaven."

"The Son of Man Is Lord Even of the Sabbath"?

The question of how Daniel 7 was very much on the minds of Jews of the period, and not only those who became followers of Yeshua. Mark, quite directly and intentionally, is offering as a close reading of Daniel. In this light, we can begin to interpret one of the most puzzling and pivotal "Son of Man" statements in the Gospel. I (DB) place these texts in an entirely different context from the one in which they are usually read; in this new context, certain clues become much more vivid and telling. It's a question of looking at the text in a new and different way, which in turn reveals connections that help sketch an entirely different picture of what's going on - or better put, what was at stake for the evangelist and his hearers.

This interpretation of Mark 2:10 as being a close reading of Daniel 7:14 enables me to begin to understand anew the other puzzling Son of Man statement in Mark 2, known as the incident of the plucking of grain on the Sabbath. In this story, Yeshua's disciples are discovered plucking grain and eating it as they walk on the Sabbath by some Pharisees who challenge Yeshu as to his seemingly insouciant or arrogant violation of the Sabbath. Yeshu defends them vigorously. We'll see sooner or later. Anyway, his main line of action is defining the borderline between right & wrong, new & old, present & past, life & death. The only 'problem' was Roman Occupation & 'evil powers standing in his way'.

Maar dat komt vast & zeker later wel weer aan de orde. Eerst even wat anders. Tijd 'raast' voorbij?!