The Son of Man is Israel? Round II: Paul Williams Daniel 7 Education Center

Just when you thought it couldn't possibly any more difficult or embarrassing for Paul Williams, he attempted to respond to Denis Giron. I can't really comment about PW's exegesis because he doesn't provide one, so I'll just address his sloppy eisegesis and let Mr Giron, touch upon anything I dismiss. 

As you will observe Paul was incapable of handling Mr Giron's exegesis and therefore unable to show any error made by Giron because as PW self admittedly asserts he is deficient in the language and knowledge, so Paul decides to rely on his on his own expertise along with rabbinic translations and a bias critical commentary. 

Firstly key point that PW makes is thus:

"I note in passing the absolute ontological distinction between the ‘Ancient of Days’: God Himself, and one like a human being (literally ‘son of man’) which is idiomatic for human being (see Ezek. 2.1; Job 25.6)."

Paul infers an ontological distinction as opposed to a distinction of personhood based on presumed idiomatic meanings of "Ancient of Days" and "Son of Man". 

To begin with Ancient of Days and Son of Man are epithets of YHVH/Elohem in the Bible. In the ancient near east Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9;13;22) linguistically referred to the Most High God illustrating his ancient age with hair, beard and his firey throne being divine authority (see vs 9 for description). Son of Man/Man linguistically refers to a human being but is used in the Bible and in ANE as an epithet for YHVH (Dan 7:13, Exo 15:3, Ezk 1:26) specifically depicting a young warrior illustration of God.

Secondly because PW can't do exegesis he missed a crucial observation: this was a vision (7:1-2;15-16) and Daniel is describing more precisely "one LIKE a human being". It is only in later period it is described as the Son of Man, since this becomes a title for the super-natural Messiah. The New Testament represents this as the risen Lord Jesus in a resurrected human form, God himself in human form.

Together then we have God revealed himself as distinct in person illustrated through the various older/younger images of the deity in the dream of Daniel. In the Old and New Testament this is else where known as Father and Son.

If PW had of read my previous post (like he claimed to), he may have noticed something from an actual Orthodox Jewish Scholar as the passage in Daniel 7:13 presents the Ancient of Days and Young Warrior one like a Son of Man as distinct persons but identical in ontology, Old Testament Scholar Michael Heiser comments:

"The striking parallels are especially noteworthy given that this is the only time in the Old Testament where a second personage other than Yahweh is described as “coming with/upon the clouds” (the preposition in Aramaic can be translated either way). The intent of the author to describe this “son of man” with a title reserved only for Yahweh was clear by virtue of how the scene followed the Baal literature — the literary cycle whose central character, Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title!" (source)

Heiser also says:

Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. No angel or lesser being bore the title. As such, everyone in Israel who heard this title associated it with a deity, not a man or an angel.

Part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). For a faithful Israelite, then, there was only one god who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh...

The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle: 

Ugarit / Baal Cycle	Daniel 7
(A) El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council.	(A) The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (cf. Ezekiel 1). Like Ugaritic El, he is white haired and aged (“ancient”).
(B) El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yamm in battle.	(B) Yahweh-El, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed.
(C) Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier. His rule is everlasting.	(C) The Son of Man is given everlasting dominion over the nations. He rules at the right hand of God. (source)

And Jewish Talmudic Professor Boyarin gives more insight into ANE relevant to Daniel 7:

“In this remarkable text, we find the prophet Daniel having a vision in which there are two divine figures, one who is depicted as an old man, an Ancient of Days, sitting on the throne. We have been told, however, that there is more than one throne there, and sure enough a second divine figure, in form ‘like a human being,’ is brought on the clouds of heaven and invested by the Ancient of Days in a ceremony very much like the passing of the torch from elder king to younger in ancient Near Eastern royal ceremonial and the passing of the torch from older gods to younger ones in their myths…" (more here)

PW himself provides substantiation for this as we will see shortly, but first I want to quote something empirical to PW's eisegesis: 

‘An image appeared in the vision resembling a human being, just as the first four images resembled different beasts. These came from the great abyss below, i.e., from the powers of evil; he comes from above, “with the clouds of heaven” i.e. from God. Just as the beasts are figures of the pagan kingdoms, so also the one in human form symbolises “the holy ones of the Most High (v 18). In the context, therefore, the one in human form is not a real individual but a symbol.‘ (The New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary Daniel 7:13)

However, this is not the context for the relevant scenery, for that we need to see the beginning of verse nine which takes us to a different place:

"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. (Dan 7:9-10)

This episode is repeated further in vs 26-27:

"But the court will convene, and his ruling authority will be removed– destroyed and abolished forever! Then the kingdom, authority, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be delivered to the people of the holy ones of the Most High. His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; all authorities will serve him and obey him.'" (Dan 7:26-27)

As PW himself demonstrates: 

"According to the JSB, ‘The model for the judgement scene is the ancient Near East council of gods in heaven, often utilised in the Bible to depict God’s council (Ps. 82.1; Job ch 1)."

PW provides us a quote that undermines his own commentary. The context here in Daniel 7 from vs 9 is the Divine Council, which the servants of God were also thought to be apart of, this is a day of judgement, so the attendants here must include Israelites (e.g. Enoch, Elijah, Moses) and Non-Israelite servants of God. 

PW fails to distinguish between the thousands and thousands attending God (vs 10) which the Son of Man is exclusively shown to be distinct from (vs 13). 

The Son of Man is mistakenly assumed to be part of the prophetic beast narrative, yet the Son of Man is introduced in a narrative that is illustrated as part of a Divine Council and not a series of beasts.

Sam Shamoun puts icing on this cake:

"Daniel sees thrones set and two distinct figures, God as the Ancient of Days who takes a seat (obviously on one of the thrones) and a Son of Man who rides the clouds and rules forever, indicating that he also occupies one of the thrones. What makes this all the more astonishing is that the reign of the Son of Man is described exactly as the reign of the Most Highs (vs 27)

Further more the word Elyonin (Most Highs) is the plural of Elyon (Most High). Daniel describes God as the Most Highs, plural, not as the Most High:

"But the saints of the Most Highs (Elyonin) will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever… But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most Highs (Elyonin). His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him." Daniel 7:18, 26-27...

In some translations the singular pronouns "his" and "him" used in verse 27 are translated in the plural:

"And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most Highs; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them." ESV 

The plural pronouns cannot refer back to the saints, but to the nearest antecedent, namely the Most Highs, since service or worship cannot be rendered unto creatures. The verb which the ESV renders as "serve", with the NIV translating as "worship", comes from the Aramaic word pelach. This is used all throughout the book of Daniel for the worship which must be given to God alone:

"‘There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego. These men, O king, pay no heed to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.’… Nebuchadnez'zar said to them, ‘Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image which I have set up?’ … Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego answered the king, ‘O Nebuchadnez'zar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.’ … Nebuchadnez'zar said, ‘Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God.’" Daniel 3:12, 14, 16-18, 28 RSV (cf. 6:16; 20; Ezra 7:24) 

Thus, since the text of verse 27 expressly says that all dominions will serve or worship the ruler of the kingdom this shows that the pronouns must be referring to God, who is identified here by the plural "Most Highs."" (source)

UPDATE

Taken from Sam:

As if the above were not enough to establish our thesis, here comes the Prophet Daniel to make our case even stronger. Daniel was given the ability to interpret dreams and visions of the pagan kings, as well as to personally experience some of his own. In one of these dreams, Nebuchadnezzar sees something troubling which he knew only Daniel could explain:

"At last Daniel came in before me -- he who was named Belteshaz'zar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods -- and I told him the dream, saying, ‘O Belteshaz'zar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is difficult for you, here is the dream which I saw; tell me its interpretation… I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven… The sentence is by THE DECREE OF THE WATCHERS, THE DECISION OF THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONES, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men. This dream I, King Nebuchadnez'zar, saw. And you, O Belteshaz'zar, declare the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.’ … And whereas the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, `Hew down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field; and let him be wet with the dew of heaven; and let his lot be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him'; this is the interpretation, O king: IT IS A DECREE OF THE MOST HIGH, which has come upon my lord the king," Daniel 4:8-9, 13, 17-18, 23-24

From the above we discover the following points:

1. The king knew that God’s Spirit was inspiring Daniel, even though he identifies the Spirit as belonging to the gods, an obvious reflection of his paganism.
2. The king sees a watcher come down from heaven announcing God’s decree.
3. According to the watcher the sentence that will soon come to pass has been decreed by the watchers and decided upon by the holy ones.
4. Later on in the text we are told that it is the Most High who has decreed this to come to pass.
5. Therefore, we can assume that the Most High is the same as the watchers, as the holy ones spoken of in the vision.

What we are essentially trying to say is that Daniel knew that God is a uniplurality, a multi-Personal Being. 

Watchers and holy ones cannot be referring to heavenly creatures since God alone decrees future events which leads us to believe that they most likely refer to God, His Spirit and Angel, who may have been the One that came down to announce the decree to the king.

After all, Daniel knew of the Angel of the Lord, the same One identified as God by the prophet Isaiah:

"He answered, ‘But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." … Nebuchadnez'zar said, ‘Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God.’" Daniel 3:25, 28

God sends this same Angel to deliver Daniel from the lion’s den:

"My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong." Daniel 6:22 (source)

I will have more to add to Sam's comments on this in the future, Christ Willing.

Third, the verses Paul references (Ezek. 2.1; Job 25.6) do not refer to a vision, but use the ordinary lexical usage of Son of Man. In the first case the prophet Ezekiel is called Son of Man e.g. human being. In the second case Son of Man describes an opinion about the human condition, yet neither of these examples are parallel to prophet Daniel's vision in which he beholds a relevant ANE theme in a divine vision revealing Father and his Son.  

Even more worrisome for PW is his shocking inability to overlook what he supposedly reads. In the very same book PW appeals to show Son of Man can only ever refer to a man as an ontological category distinct from God, yet we find Yahweh himself in a vision (provided to Ezekiel, Ezk 1:1) being depicted with an appearance of a man:

When they moved, I heard the sound of their wings– it was like the sound of rushing waters, or the voice of the Almighty, or the tumult of an army. When they stood still, they lowered their wings. Then there was a voice from above the platform over their heads when they stood still. Above the platform over their heads was something like a sapphire shaped like a throne. High above on the throne was a form that appeared TO BE A MAN. I saw an amber glow like a fire enclosed all around from his waist up. From his waist down I saw something that looked like fire. There was a brilliant light around it, like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds after the rain. This was the appearance of the surrounding brilliant light; it looked like the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I threw myself face down, and I heard a voice speaking. He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet and I will speak with you." As he spoke to me, a wind came into me and stood me on my feet, and I heard the one speaking to me. He said to me, "Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Israel, to rebellious nations who have rebelled against me; both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted, and you must say to them, 'This is what the sovereign LORD says.' Ezekiel 1:24-28-2:1-4

Williams felt the need to appeal to two heterodox sources to make the charge that the fourth beast is the Greek Empire, this is known as the Maccabean thesis. This would more or less on a historical level show Daniel as a false prophet (if proclaimed by Daniel). The problem is that PW doesn't argue for the view he approves of, so there is nothing to interact with, why shouldn't we just adhere to the traditional view?

PW also quotes from the Jerusalem Biblical Commentary (as seen above), but this contradicts the JSB, and further more the JBC isn't a Jewish source. PW is appealing to woefully disputed Catholic Bible Commentary (2) that is alien to the Biblical context and Jewish Thought.

In a desperate attempt to appeal to johnny come lately anti-missionaries jumping on the band wagon of 11th century Ibn Ezra (the first person to introduce the idea of the Son of Man as being Israel in Daniel) PW has managed to quite thoroughly depart himself from the Biblical text and the earliest and latest Jewish Exegesis.

Finally when you can't provide a sound exegesis because all ancient and contemporary Jewish exegesis and scholarship vehemently oppose your own bias opinion, what do you do? Well, you appeal to the standard Islamic corruption card. This of course, is nothing but a red herring. When all other options fail, you question the credibility of the source itself which means Williams has implicitly attested he knows he is wrong on his eisegesis and thus has to throw Daniel under the bus. 

However many conservative Jewish and Christian scholars disagree with the standard dating because of arguments provided like these by Glen Miller.

As usual for Paul Williams, we see nothing but conclusions rather than evidence, no real attempt to deal with anything Mr. Giron said. No critical inquiry of the contradictory commentaries he posted, appeals to pseudo-authority, begging the question, not adhering to common ground, lack of critical thinking and ability to deal with former evidence provided by anyone participating. In other words in sum: a total lack of any substance, very shallow surface layer quick draw, fire aim and miss. If this was a report card Paul would get a D minus or worse.