[This article is post #7, the last post of my seven-post review of Dr. Richard Bauckham’s first of his two-book series, “Son of Man:” Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature (Eerdmans, 2023), which is important to Christology. A release date for his yet unpublished volume 2 has not been given. Click here to go to post #1.]
Overview of the prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7
The title of this article is the title of the last chapter in Richard Bauckham’s book, “Son of Man:” Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature. He says this book is the most thorough monograph ever published on how early Jewish exegetes interpreted the Son of Man in The Parables of Enoch and Daniel 7, but also the Messianic Figure in other Tanakh (Old Testament) texts. He begins on p. 370 by reiterating the 6th century BCE prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7 which coincide. They predict the four successive empires of the Mediterranean world—Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome—wherein the last three occurred afterwards in history. Both prophecies taken together predict that the kingdom of God will fall like a stone from heaven, crashing down upon the Roman Empire (Daniel 2.34-35, 44-45), and it will be led by “one like a son of man” (7.13). The early Christians generally believed this “son of man” was Jesus of Nazareth, a title he often used for himself.
Daniel’s “Son of Man” Is a Man, Not a Symbol
Bauckham then relates concerning the Tanakh (p. 371), “In all of the [early Jewish written] sources, the figure in Daniel 7.13 is undoubtedly understood to represent an individual, who can be identified with individual Messianic Figures in other prophecies. That the ‘one like a son of man’ [in Daniel 7.13] is an individual, not a symbol for ‘the holy ones of the Most High’ [v. 22], is already clear in the Old Greek version of Daniel, which distinguishes, within the vision, between the holy ones and the ‘one like a son of man.’ A ‘corporate’ understanding of the humanlike figure is similarly absent from these sources.” In modern times, most exegetes of Dan 7.13 have viewed “one like a son of man” as an angel or a symbol of Jewish saints, thus not a literal man.
Bauckham repeatedly states this in his book in opposition to the prevailing notion by modern scholars that ‘the one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7.13 does not depict a human being but symbolizes the holy people of Israel. (See “The Son of Man” in my book, The Restitution: Biblical Proof Jesus Is NOT God, pp. 164-183, wherein I agree with him.)
Bauckham Admits,”I Was Wrong”
As I stated in a previous post, Dr. Bauckham—who is British and one of the eminent New Testament scholars in the world—had revealed in the preface of this book (p. ix), “What convinced me that such an extensive discussion of this topic was worthwhile was that, as I entered into more detailed study of every part of it, I frequently found, not only that I was coming up with new observations and conclusions, but also that these were unexpected and surprising to me.” Then, on p. 101 in this book, he admits that he thought the author of “The Parables of Enoch” had portrayed “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7.13 as both a man and a divine being, which is how most Christians are taught about Jesus. Bauckham then admits concerning The Parables, “Detailed study of the Parables has convinced me that I was wrong.” This is an interesting admission from the professor since he, like most conservative Christian scholars, is Trinitarian.
Dr. Bauckham further elaborates at the end of this book (p. 374), “The humanity of the ‘one like a son of man’ relates to what is probably the most unexpected result [by him] of this study. It is that in all these [early Jewish literary] sources,… this figure is understood to be a human who had been born and lived on earth in the past and is now being preserved by God in paradise or heaven until the time of the end when he will fulfill the role of the Messiah described in Daniel 7 and other prophecies.” This comports completely with the New Testament presentation of Jesus’s death, resurrection, and heavenly ascension, where he sits with God on God’s throne until the yet future time of his second coming (cf. esp. Psalm 110.1).
Bauckham continues (p. 375), “In the interpretations of Daniel 7 we have studied, the Messiah has been born on earth in the past and will come in the future from heaven. This is remarkably close to the way early Christians read Daniel 7, a comparison that will be explored in part 3 of this work,” meaning his Volume 2. However, later, during the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries, Catholic Church bishops changed this primitive, Jewish understanding about the Son of Man’s identity (Jesus) to him being a God-man who had always preexisted as “Logos-Son.” Yet Bauckham concludes concerning pre-Christian Jewish exegetes who interpreted “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7.13 that for them, “Messiah would come as a man from heaven but he did not originate from heaven.” Christians are taught the Incarnation—that Jesus eternally preexisted in heaven as the Logos-Son and then came to earth to become a man.
Conclusion
Dr. Bauckham is a Trinitarian and therefore believes Jesus is both man and God. He is well known in his writings for coining the expression “the unique divine identity” and applying it to Jesus. Now that he has changed his mind about early Jewish literature, especially The Parables of Enoch and “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7.13, that they do not say this figure or the Messianic Figure in other biblical texts is both man and God, I am wondering how Dr. Bauckham in Volume 2 of this two-book series will reconcile this new observation with his belief that Jesus is both of these figures and that he is a God-man. So, I look forward with much anticipation to see how the distinguished British professor and fellow of the British Academy will treat Jesus in the New Testament as “the Son of Man.”
[See Kermit’s two books that relate to this book review: The Restitution: Biblical Proof Jesus Is NOT God and The Gospel Corrupted: When Jesus Was Made God.]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In