We are going to look at many references to the “Son of Man.” In Matt 8.19-22 we learn that there is a price that will be paid for following the “Son of Man.” The young man wanted to follow Yeshua, but wanted to bury his father first. That is another way of saying, “Wait till he dies.” Yeshua says, “Let the dead bury the dead.” Now, the word for “dead” is “metta” and the word for “town” is “matta.” This may have been a confused word for the translators. This may mean, “Let the town bury the dead” and it makes more sense because there were people in every town that did this. Lev 21.11 says that the High Priest was not allowed to bury his dead.
In Matt 9.6 we learn that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins. He proves it by healing a paralytic and he doesn’t even ask the Lord, he just commands it. This goes back to our understanding of the shaliach. The people cannot see his sins being forgiven, but they could see him being healed, getting up and walking home. Matt 10.23 speaks about the coming of the Son of Man, and Matt 11.19 speaks about the Son of Man came eating and drinking, in contrast to Yochanon ha Matvil (John the Immerser). In Matt 12.1-8 we have an interesting story. Yeshua and his Talmidim are walking through the grainfields and were hungry. They began picking some of the heads of grain and began eating them. This was permissible according to Deut 23.25. Some Pharisees from Beit Shammai did not allow this on the Sabbath and they take issue with Yeshua. Yeshua says there was a similar situation in 1 Sam 21 with David and his men. They were hungry and they entered the Mishkan and they were given the consecrated bread meant only for the priests. It was a Sabbath and the High Priest gave them permission to eat it because they were good men in need. The High Priest asked the Lord if it was alright (1 Sam 22.10) and then he gave them the provisions.
Then Yeshua gives another example of how the priests work on the Sabbath. What Yeshua is getting at is this. If the needs of the Temple outweigh the Sabbath, what about the needs of people? The answer is “Yes” (Mark 2.27). Within the framework of the Torah there is a concept called the “Hierarchy of Principles.” This teaches that there are certain needs that take precedence over other needs. Yeshua is the Temple (John 2.19-21). If they knew he was the Messiah, then these critics would have no cause to criticize those who did any work serving the one who is greater than the Temple (v 6). He gave them permission, just like the High Priest did with David. Yeshua instituted the Sabbath (the Son of Man) and he is Lord of the Sabbath (he determines the halakah). Other verses referring to the Son of Man in Matthew are: Matt 12.32, 12.40, 13.37, 13.41, 16.13, 16.27-28, 17.9, 17.12, 17.22, 18.11, 19.28, 20.28, 24.27, 24.30, 24.37, 24.39, 24.44, 25.13, 25.31, 26.2, 26.24, 26.45 and Matt 26.64.
We have where Yeshua makes a statement to individuals and sometimes to his talmidim (students/disciples). But when he is before Caiaphas you have to “fill in the blanks.” What would Caiaphas or some other person present there have thought when Yeshua says he is “the Son of Man” and he is “sitting at the right hand of the Power (Father)” at the judgment? According to what Yeshua has said, they know that those who reject him are going to be judged. All of this was going on so we need to fill in the blanks with what we have from the writings at the time and with the understanding of the time.
As we have said before, the High Priest Caiaphas can only go into the Holy of Holies on earth one time a year, on Yom Kippur. Yeshua tells Caiaphas that he (Yeshua) will be sitting in judgment of Caiaphas and those with him, with God himself, in the heavenly Holy of Holies. So, in essence, it wasn’t Caiaphas who was judging Yeshua, it was Yeshua judging Caiaphas and those with him. Even if Caiaphas, being a Sadducee, didn’t believe in the resurrection, there were others there that did. So, the phrase “Son of Man” is very important because words mean things. For example, we know of a dog trainer who had a dog named Isis. Today, when you say Isis it brings up terrorism in people’s minds. When Yeshua said “Son of Man” all kinds of images, teachings and concepts flooded the minds of those who heard him. Everything tied back in with the Scriptures. In order to understand the Messiah, you have to understand all the various books, expressions and the Jewish concepts associated with what he is saying. All of this relates back to the Two Redemption’s. This is a very Jewish concept and in the Daily Prayer Book the redemption out of Egypt is mentioned very frequently. This is the First Redemption.
Let’s look at some terms. In Jer 23.5-6 we have a term “days are coming” and this refers to the Second Redemption. The “Branch” is the “Tzemach” and it is a term for the Messiah. Then it says there is a name by which “he will be called.” Jer 23.7-8 then goes on to say that the days are coming (Second Redemption) when people will no longer say “as the Lord lives who brought up the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt (First Redemption) but, as the Lord lives who brought up and led back the descendants of the household of Israel from the north land and from the countries where I have driven them.” This is the Second Redemption.
Jer 33.15-16 is similar to Jer 23.5-6. It says “In those days” (the Second Redemption) and it also mentions the “Branch” who is the Messiah. Then it says there is a name by which “she shall be called.” What we have is a marriage. The “he” in Jer 23.6 and his name is given to the “she” of Jer 33.16 and is now the “bride” of the “Branch.” Then Jer 33.17-18 goes on to say that “David shall not lack a man to sit on the throne.” However, we haven’t had a king since Jeconiah. It also says that the “Levitical priests shall not lack a man before me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to prepare sacrifices continually.” We haven’t had kohanim (priests) to do this since 70 AD. So, these verses must apply to the future when Messiah comes in the Second Redemption. There has to be a future Temple, with a king and a priesthood. In Jer 50.4, the term “In those days” (when Messiah comes) is used again.
So, let’s go over some concepts in review. Moses is called the shaliach of the First redemption, empowered by God and sent to lead the people out of Egypt. It is one thing to be “called” and another thing to be “sent.” The shaliach Moses has a special relationship with the people. He is a Levite, but not a priest. He is not a king, but he has a different status than everyone else. He was clearly the ruler. Num 12.1-8 shows his status and it was not a good thing to speak against Moses. This brings up a side note on “silence.” There is a silence when everyone is quiet. Then there is a silence when you should say something, like Mordechai told Esther (Est 4.13). The word “silent” there is the same word used in Num 30.4 where it says, “You are silent.” The word “Purim” in Persian means “lots.” But in Hebrew, it is used in the Torah in Num 30.13 meaning “to annul” a vow or “pur” (plural is “purim). The hidden theme in Esther is how she will “annul” the vow of her husband.
In Num 12.1 they spoke against the Cushite wife of Moses. He took her as a wife before he was 40 when he was a prince of Egypt after conquering Cush (Ethiopia), according to Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 10. Aaron and Miriam said “has the Lord indeed spoken only to Moses? Has he not spoken through us as well?” And the Lord heard it. Aaron and Miriam were shaliachim also (Micah 6.4). But, as you read Num 12.1-8, you will see that Moses was different than Aaron and Miriam. God spoke to Moses “mouth to mouth” or face to face. Moses was in a peculiar status above all others. It will be the same with Messiah. The Egyptian Redemption will give us parallels about the Messianic Redemption.
In Part 12, we will pick up here and develop the concept of “mouth to mouth” and how it relates to Yom Kippur. We will see a parallel between Moses and Yom Kippur and the coming of Yeshua on Yom Kippur. Knowing festival terms will let you know “where you are.”
Leave a Reply