Who is this Son of Man? Jesus of Nazareth and His Claim to Deity (with Dr. Justin Bass)

Here is the recording of the webinar I hosted with Dr. Justin Bass of Dallas Theological Seminary this past Saturday. We looked at the historicity of Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man from the book of Daniel and its significance. See here and here for articles I have written on this subject.

Does Jesus' Claim to be the Son of Man Affirm His Deity? Catching Yahya Snow in a Contradiction

I recently had some back and forth (see here and here) with Muslim YouTube polemicist Yahya Snow regarding Jesus' self-identification by the title "Son of Man", a clear reference back to Daniel 7:13-14 in which Daniel sees a vision of a divine-human figure. Yahya Snow insists that the Son of Man is a personification of the nation of Israel, and cannot possibly refer to a person who is God. As I mentioned previously, the Greek Septuagint translation tells us that the Son of Man receives latreuo from all nations. Latreuo is the very highest form of worship and religious service. In Yahya Snow's recent video on whether Jesus allowed His disciples to worship Him (which I addressed in my previous article here), he shows a clip of Ali Ataie talking about the two Greek words that are used for worship -- proskuneo and latreuo. Ataie concedes that latreuo is a form of worship reserved for God alone. Yet here is the problem: Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, who, according to the Greek Septuagint translation of Daniel 7:14, receives latreuo. But Yahya insists that Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man is not a claim to deity. Yahya Snow thus appears to have been caught in a contradiction.

Is the Son of Man the Nation of Israel? A Reply to Yahya Snow

Muslim polemicist Yahya Snow has published a response to my recent article regarding the Son of Man (apparently without linking to the article he is addressing). It is curious that Yahya Snow exemplifies the very same attitude that I often observe among the "new atheist" community that I engage with. He can't imagine that someone who is as informed and rational as him could possibly disagree reasonably. Thus, those with whom he disagrees must have been subject to indoctrination, or some other impediment to clear thinking. As I noted previously, he had earlier stated that the reason for my "superficial and misleading spin" on Daniel 7:13-14 was because I "may well have been indoctrinated...in [my] youth." This time, he has another reason why I don't see things the way he does: Pride. He writes,

"I’d like you to make a concerted and conscious effort to put pride and any other hindrance to objective analysis to one side and reflect on the points in the video as well as the supplementary material in this blog post." 

Further,

Being led by emotion and pride in order to defend an idea (Trinity) which is described as idolatry by Jewish rabbis is really playing with fire -- regardless of who you are [...] Please look into it sans pride and the emotional baggage surrounding it.

To Yahya, it is inconceivable that someone could have taken the time to watch his video and read his blog post and yet fail to be persuaded by his argumentation. When I recently suggested a debate on the identity of the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament, Yahya was sure that this must be the reason I don't see things the way he does. He said,

"I'd rather encourage you to reflect further on this issue as opposed to jumping into a debate to defend your personal view on the angel of the Lord. Acting upon the impulse of pride can blind one from seeing the the [sic] truth."

 Now, let's turn to the issue at hand.

Who is the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14?

Jesus’ favourite self-designation in the gospels is the title “Son of Man”. In the narrative of Jesus’ trial, Jesus connects this title with the image of “coming with the clouds of heaven”, thus drawing our attention to the prophetic text of Daniel 7:13-14:

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

A typical Jewish interpretation of this text in Daniel is that the Son of Man is actually a personification of the nation of Israel. Jewish apologists draw support for this interpretation from the interpretation of Daniel’s entire vision given in verses 15-22 of the same chapter, and in particular verses 18, 22 and 27: “But in the end, the holy people of the Most High will be given the kingdom, and they will rule forever and ever… until the Ancient of Days—the Most High—came and judged in favor of his holy people. Then the time arrived for the holy people to take over the kingdom.… Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will last forever, and all rulers will serve and obey him.”” Thus, it is argued, the Son of Man in verses 13-14 actually refers to the “saints of the most high”, not the Messiah. This is the argument presented in a recent video by Muslim YouTube polemicist Yahya Snow claiming to offer a refutation of my claim that the "Son of Man" was used by Jesus as a divine title.

The clip that Yahya Snow played of me was from an old radio debate of mine, at a point at which I was asked to give an example where Jesus self-identified as God. I cited Jesus' self-designation as "Son of Man" and its clear ties to Daniel 7:13-14. Here, it is less important how the text was originally intended by its author to be interpreted and more important how Jesus Himself understood it and his intent in applying the title to Himself. Clearly, Jesus did not understand the title "Son of Man" in Daniel as a reference to the nation of Israel (unless one is seriously going to contend that Jesus considered Himself to be the whole nation of Israel). Jesus clearly understood the title as a title of deity.