Q+R: Son of Man - Son of Man E9

Mar 11, 2019

In this engaging discussion, the hosts tackle intriguing questions about the nuances of humans and animals in biblical context. They explore the implications of animal portrayals and how they relate to humanity's moral standing. The conversation shifts to the Book of Daniel, unraveling its complexities and the character of Daniel himself. Insightful debates on the 'Son of Man' reveal themes of messianic identity and collective humanity. Additionally, they envision a future reality of love and embodying values beyond traditional concepts of heaven.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Animal Imagery

Animal imagery in the Bible can be positive or negative, not inherently bad.
The negative use of animal imagery often represents evil or humans failing to follow God's wisdom.

INSIGHT

Empty Throne

Daniel 7's empty throne symbolizes God's desire for a human to fulfill their destined role.
This throne is a creative interpretation combining Daniel 7 and Psalm 110.

INSIGHT

Daniel's Absence

Daniel's absence in Daniel 3 is likely due to the book's literary design.
The author of Daniel selectively chose stories to emphasize different aspects of the messianic seed.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Show Notes:

Welcome to our Q+R on the Son of Man! Thank you to everyone who sent in questions. Here are the questions we responded to:

Matt from Australia: (0:55)
I've got a question about humans and animals. It seems like animals get a really bad rap. You've been talking about when humans don't pass the test or live as they're made to live, they're not truly the image of God, they act less than human or to be true, they act like animals. And I'm wondering what about animals is so bad or so wrong? Or are you trying to communicate about a different reality than an animal? Thanks!

Petra from the Netherlands: (6:20)
In the podcast (The Empty Throne), Tim refers to the Empty Throne in Daniel 7, but if I read Daniel 7 in different translations, vs 9 says "thrones" and vs 10 "the court place." So I get the conclusion that thrones are set for the court. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells his disciples that they will sit on the 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. I don't assume that's specific because in Revelation it says 24. My question is, where do you get the conclusion that the empty throne refers to the Son of Man because I come to the conclusion that it refers to the court. Thank you!

Rachel from Delaware: (12:35)
This is a question I've always had: where is Daniel in Daniel 3?

Stephanie from Virginia: (21:05)
My question is, why is Daniel portrayed as a new human, a new Adam, when he is not THE new human, the Messiah to come?

John from North Wales: (21:20)
I've found this series on the Son of Man really exciting. I have a question about Daniel. I was struck when you were taking us through those first chapters in the book of Daniel that Daniel himself actually seems to be a flawless human being. My working paradigm was that there are no heroes in the Old Testament except for God himself, but Daniel does actually seems to pass the test (or at least to not really fail the test at any particular point). So how do you interpret the figure of Daniel? Thanks!

Sam from Ohio: (26:04)
In Daniel 7:18, 22, 27, it speaks of the saints being given the dominion and kingdom to possess forever. Verse 27 ends by saying, "All dominions shall serve and obey them." But the ESV footnote says it might end by saying, "All dominions shall serve and obey him." Is it a possible interpretation to view the Son of Man as a figurative representation of all the saints of the Most High rather than a specific individual? Or what is the connection between the individual and the collective groups of saints? Thanks!

Douglas from Rwanda: (40:15)
I was curious about the use of the word "son of man" in other Old Testament books such as Ezekiel. Ezekiel appears to be written before Daniel and they use the exact same word "son of man." I wonder if you know if it has a different meaning, and if not, how is it related to Daniel's use of "son of man?" Thank you!

Ivan from El Salvador: (43:20)
I love the conversation about the Son of God and how he's someone God gave that title. How, with that definition, do we read John 1:12 that whoever receives him will be called a son of God? How do we understand that, or does John have a different definition in mind?

Thank you to all of our supporters!

Find more resources at www.thebibleproject.com

Show produced by:
Dan Gummel, Jon Collins

Theme music:
Defender Instrumental, Tents