name for himself, which he used as the title of the Messiah (Bloch 1972:146,
161). Jesus lived during a period of political unrest, prophecy, and expectations.
The Jewish people waited for a king from the House of David who was capa-
ble of driving out the Roman occupiers (Bloch 1995:1256).
If the Gospels are an accurate historical account, Jesus referred to himself
alternately as the Son of God and the Son of Man without any consistent pat-
tern. The Judaic concept of the Son of Man is different from the Greek con-
cept of the Son of God; although both concepts are theological, the Son of
Man is more secularized and rationalized (Bloch 1968:161). The tension between
the Son of God and the Son of Man is based on a contradiction between man’s
faith in God and man’s faith in himself. The idea of the Son of Man is human-
istic; it implies that humanity is the source of salvation (Bloch 1968:159; West
1991:205). Trust in God is given up and placed instead in the Son of Man
(Bloch 1995:1238). In a simultaneous act of self-deification and secularization,
Jesus “called God his own Father, making himself equal with God” ( John
5:18). Jesus put himself on reciprocal and equal level to God: “no one knows
the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son”
(Matthew 11:27). In a dialectical act of secularization, “that which men call
God” becomes man (Bloch 1972:270). The Son of Man represents a move away
from the belief in God and a dialectical secularization of faith into man.
The messianic figure was of a king riding on an ass (Zechariah 9:9). “Behold,
your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on an ass” (Matthew 21:5;
see also John 12:15). He rode upon an ass because he was the prince of the
poor (Weber 1952:18, 55–56, 368–369). The prophecy was of the messiah enter-
ing the gates of Jerusalem (Weber 1952:231, 322).
Even though the Davidic kings had disappeared for centuries, Jesus claimed
to be “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1; Mark 10:47; 12:35;
Luke 3:23–38). Claiming to be of the Davidic line, Jesus’ aspiration was to
ascend to the throne of the Jewish monarchy and lead Judea to break free of
Roman occupation. Because of his failure, this is why the Romans sarcasti-
cally inscribed “this is the King of the Jews” on his crucifix (Luke 23:38;
Kautsky 1925:405).
Whereas the Romans had a belief in Master morality, the Jews in opposi-
tion had slave morality.
All that has been done on earth against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the
masters,” “the rulers,” fades into nothing compared with what the Jews
have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing214 • Warren S. Goldstein