When Jesus Christ was on earth, he called himself “the Son of man,” implying his kinship to mankind. (Matthew 16:13; 25:31) To the Sanhedrin, or Jewish high court, Jesus said: “You yourself said it. But I say to you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64) So in Daniel’s vision, the one coming is Jesus Christ. More than 90 times, Ezekiel is referred to as the “son of man.” (Ezek. 2:1) This was God reminding him that even though he has received the great privilege of being a major prophet of God, he was only a man. This heightened the distinction between the human spokesman and the Source of Ezekiel’s message, the Almighty God. The same expression is used by the prophet Daniel in Daniel 8:17. It was certainly due to wanting some literal fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 7:13 that the Pharisees and Sadducees asked Jesus “to show them a sign from heaven.” (Mt 16:1; Mr 8:11)  Significantly, in the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as the “Son of man” some 80 times, showing that he was fully human. So, yes, the Son of Man in Daniel 7 references Jesus Christ.—Edward D. Andrews.

The Short Response from J. Dwight Pentecost,

7:13–14. In the third major portion of this vision Daniel saw the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days. Jesus Christ, taking the title “Son of Man” from this prophecy, frequently used it to refer to Himself (as recorded in the Gospels; cf. comments on Mark 8:31; John 1:51). When the Son of Man was brought into the presence of the Ancient of Days, all the authority, glory, and sovereign power that had been exercised by rulers in the four kingdoms over all peoples, nations, and men of every language (cf. Dan. 3:4, 7; 4:1; 5:19; 6:25) was conferred on Him and those peoples worshiped Him. This is in keeping with the Father’s promise to the Son in Psalm 2:6–9, and will be fulfilled at Christ’s Second Advent (Matt. 24:30; 25:31; Rev. 11:15).

The Son of Man will establish an everlasting dominion or kingdom (cf. Dan. 4:34; 7:27). That kingdom will never be conquered by another (cf. 6:26). His reign will be established on earth (Rev. 20:1–6). At the expiration of the 1,000 years of the Lord’s millennial reign, He will surrender the kingdom to God the Father, after which Christ will be appointed as Ruler over God’s eternal kingdom forever (1 Cor. 15:24–28). – J. Dwight Pentecost, “Daniel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1351.

The Intermediate Response, Paul R. House,

13. The stage has been cleared for a new figure. Instead of seeing something from a troubled sea, Daniel views one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. Though like Daniel, then, he is still different. He is at home in the heavenly courtroom, and is also fit to live among human beings. Since cloud imagery often depicts God (Exod. 19:9; 34:5; Num. 11:25; Lucas 2002:184), this individual has high status, and will receive higher still. Unlike the brash little horn, this person is humble. He waits to be presented to the Ancient of Days.

14. At first, it appears that the Ancient of Days grants him the same dominion and glory and kingdom that God ‘Most High’ gave Nebuchadnezzar (4:1–3) and Darius (6:25): all peoples, nations and languages. This was indeed a great gift bestowed on magnificently favoured rulers. The second half of the verse, however, reveals that God’s gift to him exceeds the ones given to those significant monarchs. Unlike their temporary reigns and vulnerable realms, his dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be destroyed. In short, he receives the kingdom 2:44 describes. Furthermore, he must be everlasting to rule for this length of time, so he has attributes and prerogatives that God ‘Most High’ possesses in 4:1–3; 4:34–37; and 6:25–27. Nabonidus and Belshazzar had a significant co-regency, but theirs pales in comparison to the one the Ancient of Days and Son of Man share.

Who is this ‘one like a son of man’? The phrase can refer generally to a member of humanity (Job 25:6), or specifically to a particular person within humanity (Ezek. 37:11; Dan. 8:17). Context determines the person’s identity by divulging his role. Here, this character is ‘like a son of man’, which indicates that he resembles a human being, whereas the four rulers in 7:1–8 resemble malformed animals (Baldwin 1978:142–143). Also like the beasts, the ‘one like a son of man’ has a kingdom that spans the nations, yet theirs is temporary, and his is permanent.

Though 7:14 does not mention David, the Davidic messiah is the only one to whom God gives the world’s kingdoms permanently in the Old Testament (see 2 Sam. 7; Pss 2; 110; Isa. 11:1–9, etc.). No angel receives this honour. Gerhard von Rad correctly asserts that only a messianic figure fits this description (1965:312). Walter Kaiser (1978:246) states that the Son of Man combines ‘the high calling of humanity and the position reserved alone for God’. This interpretation connects the Son of Man’s heavenly and human aspects, and fits the vision’s interpretation in 7:15–27.—Paul R. House, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. David G. Firth, vol. 23, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018), 130–131.

In the longer response, John Walvoord writes,

Here is the climax of Daniel’s vision. Again, heaven rather than earth is in view. verse 13 follows verse 10 chronologically. verses 11–12 are explanatory and do not advance the narrative. Porteous correctly notes, “The interposition, however, of vv. 11 and 12 is necessary to express the author’s meaning.” One described as “like a son of man,” in obvious contrast with the beasts and the little horn, comes before the throne of the Ancient of Days, attended by the clouds of heaven. The purpose of this heavenly presentation is indicated in verse 14, where the Son of Man is given a worldwide kingdom involving all peoples. In contrast to the preceding kingdoms, this is a kingdom that “shall not be destroyed.” This kingdom is obviously the expression of divine sovereignty dealing dramatically with the human situation in a way that introduces the eternal state where God is manifestly supreme in His government of the universe.

Conservative scholars are agreed that the Son of Man is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ rather than an angelic agency. The description of Him as being worthy of ruling all nations is obviously in keeping with many passages in the Bible referring to the millennial rule of Jesus Christ, for example, Psalm 2:6–9 and Isaiah 11. Like the scene in Revelation 4–5, Christ is portrayed as a separate person from God the Father. The expression that He is attended by “clouds of heaven” implies His deity (1 Thess. 4:17). A parallel appears in Revelation 1:7, “Behold, he is coming with the clouds,” in fulfillment of Acts 1 where in His ascension Christ was received by a cloud and the angels tell the disciples that Christ “will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9–11). Clouds in Scripture are frequently characteristic of revelation of deity (Exod. 13:21–22; 19:9, 16; 1 Kings 8:10–11; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Ezek. 10:4; Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26).

Some liberal scholars argue that the lack of the definite article with the title “son of man” means that this was merely a human being who appeared to Daniel.56 Although there might be some linguistic support for this idea, Jesus’ frequent use of this title for Himself in the New Testament is the divine commentary on the phrase (cf. Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22, etc.). “Son of Man” was, in fact, Jesus’ favorite description of Himself during His earthly ministry.

In verse 13, the Son of Man is presented as being near the Ancient of Days, and in verse 14 He is given dominion over all peoples and nations. This could not be an angel, nor could it be the body of saints, as it corresponds clearly to other Scriptures that predict that Christ will rule over all nations (Ps. 72:11; Rev. 19:15–16). Only Christ will come with clouds of heaven, and be the King of kings and Lord of lords over all nations throughout eternity. Inasmuch as all the nations that survive His purging judgment and come under His dominion are saints, it would be a confusion to make the Son of Man the personification of the saints. Keil states on this point,

With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “as a man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to the current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward form of a man.” Young observes that some expositors regard the Son of Man as representing the people of Israel. But as he points out, the earliest interpretation regarded this as messianic and referring to the Christ, and this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Jesus Christ took the title Himself in the New Testament.

From verse 14 it is apparent that Daniel was given revelation in addition to what he saw in the vision. While the vision could portray the Son of Man receiving authority, the purpose of this act would have to be revealed to Daniel. At every point the kingdom from heaven is contrasted with the preceding kingdoms of the four great world empires and shown to be superior. If Daniel’s prophecy beginning with the phrase “it had ten horns” in verse 7 and continuing through verse 14 is yet to be fulfilled, a question naturally arises: Why did Daniel not include the events of the age between the first and second advents of Christ?

In the main, commentators have offered three options. First, like the liberal scholars, they could deny literal fulfillment and even claim that Daniel was in error. Second, they could find these prophecies were symbolically fulfilled in church history. This has been the viewpoint in part of postmillennialism and amillennialism. Or third, they could find these prophecies to be distinctly future and not at all fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire, or anything else in history. The third view, which is the futuristic interpretation, is the only one that provides the possibility of literal fulfillment of this prophecy.

It has been enthusiastically presented that the church is the fifth kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy, that the Son of Man’s coming is His first coming to the earth, and that the church is responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. But nothing is stranger to church history than this interpretation. It is questionable whether the Roman Empire had any serious opposition from the Christian church or that the growing power of the church contributed in a major way to its downfall. Edward Gibbon, in his classic work on the Roman Empire, gives “four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate over a period of more than a thousand years: 1. The injuries of time and nature. 2. The hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians. 3. The use and abuse of the materials. 4. The domestic quarrels of the Romans.”

Undoubtedly, the church’s growing presence in the declining Roman Empire was a factor in its history, and Gibbon includes “the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity”60 in a detailed list of factors contributing to the Empire’s decline and fall. Yet it is quite clear that the church was not the major factor and in no way can be identified as a sudden and catastrophic cause for the fall of the Roman Empire. Although the church dominated Europe during the Middle Ages, its power began to be disrupted by the Protestant Reformation at the very time that the Roman Empire was gasping its last in the fifteenth century. Although the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church is recognized by everyone, it does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 7:23, that the fourth kingdom “shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.” This would require figurative hands of Christ at His second coming. This interpretation, though not without its problems, allows an accurate and detailed interpretation of this prophecy.61 Even Leupold, who may be classified as a conservative amillenarian, states,

Why does the sequence of historical kingdoms in this vision extend no farther than the Roman whereas we know that many developments came after the Roman Empire and have continued to come before the judgment? We can venture only opinions under this s head, opinions that we believe are reasonable and conform with the situation as it is outlined. One suggestion to be borne in mind is the fact that the prophets, barring the conclusion of chapter 9 in Daniel, never see the interval of time lying between the first and second coming of Christ. In the matter of history, therefore, Daniel does not see beyond Christ’s days in the flesh and perhaps the persecution as it came upon the early church.

If Daniel 7 had concluded with verse 14, it is probable, with the help of the book of Revelation and other scriptural passages, that a reasonable explanation could be made of the text. In view of the complexity and importance of the prophecy, the chapter continues to give the reader a divinely inspired interpretation. It should be borne in mind that while a symbol is obviously parabolic and figurative, its interpretation should be taken literally. Accordingly, the explanation can be taken as a factual exegesis of the truth involved in the vision.—John Walvoord. Daniel (The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries), 2012. Moody Publishers.

Stephen R. Miller writes,

With these two verses the grand climax of the vision is reached. As the NRSV indicates, they probably are poetic. Four kingdoms were symbolized by the beasts—the kingdoms of men. Now another kingdom comes into view—the kingdom of God. Verse 13 is the verse of Daniel most often quoted in the New Testament.

7:13 Daniel watched in awe as one “like a son of man [kĕbar ʾĕnāš]” descended into the throne room surrounded by the clouds of heaven (v. 13). “One like a son of man” means that this person was in human form. As Baldwin points out, however, he is more than a man.

The LXX has “upon” [epi] the clouds, presenting a logical explanation for the clouds. The clouds would naturally serve as a vehicle of transportation (cf. Rev 14:14–15). Clouds often were associated with deity in the ancient world, and this being was no mere mortal. Heaton argues that this person ascended from earth to heaven, but Keil aptly replies, “If he who appears as a son of man with the clouds of heaven comes before the Ancient of Days executing the judgment on the earth, it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth.”⁵⁴ In the vision the clouds add an aura of majesty and grandeur to the spectacle as the son of man was presented to the Ancient of Days.

7:14 Since the “son of man” was “given” a kingdom and authority to rule, this scene evidently describes the coronation of the “son of man” by the Ancient of Days. According to the text, therefore, this individual will be crowned as the sovereign ruler of the world. His reign will never end.

Who is this mysterious being? There has been much discussion concerning this question. As a matter of fact, Baldwin declares that v. 13 “has been the subject of more scholarly papers than any other in the book.” Three views are most common. First, Collins argues that the “one like a son of man” represents the archangel Michael, and the “holy ones” (“saints”; cf. vv. 18, 27) of Dan 7 are his angelic followers on whose behalf he receives the kingdom. Faithful Jews are associated with these “holy ones” in the sense that their future includes elevation to the rank of angel (see discussion at 12:3). However, the saints are specifically identified as “the people of the Most High” in v. 27, and the son of man is no mere angel as later discussion will demonstrate. Baldwin adds: “Apparently decisive against the angelic view is the suffering and defeat implied in 7:21, 25.” G. R. Beasley-Murray too has convincingly argued that the “one like a son of man” could not have been an angel and that the vision is an actual theophany.

Second, many interpret the “son of man” to be the personification of the people of God, the Jewish nation. They contend that since believers receive the kingdom (vv. 18, 22, 27), the son of man who also receives the kingdom must be symbolic of God’s people. Yet Baldwin observes that the phrase is “son of man,” not “son of Israel/Jacob,” as one would expect if the Jewish saints were intended. Keil rightly comments that “the delivering of the kingdom to the people of God does not, according to the prophetic mode of contemplation, exclude the Messiah as its king but much rather includes him, inasmuch as Daniel, like the other prophets, knows nothing of a kingdom without a head, a Messianic kingdom without the King Messiah.” Thus both the king (Messiah) and the kingdom’s subjects (believers) receive the kingdom.

Another difficulty with the identification of the son of man as the people of God is that in v. 14 all the nations of the earth are said to “worship” the son of man, and Scripture is clear that God alone is to be worshiped (cf. Rev 19:10). Another indicator of his deity is that clouds accompany the son of man as he descends, and clouds commonly are associated with deity. Lacocque observes: “Out of a total of about a hundred occurrences in Scripture, in 70% of the cases, clouds refer to Sinai, or to the Temple (see I Kings 8:10–11; 2 Chr. 5:13–14; 2 Macc. 2:8; cf. the vision of the Merkaba in Ezek. 1:4 and 10:3–4), or to eschatological theophanies (Isa. 4:5; Ps. 97:2; Nahum 1:3).” Young seems justified in stating, “There can be no question, but that Deity is intended here,”⁶³ and Baldwin remarks, “The son of man is not only king but God, though, as is characteristic of apocalyptic style, this is conveyed in veiled terms.” Verse 14 further reveals that “all” humanity will worship the son of man, and “all” humanity naturally would include the saints.

Third, only one person may properly be identified as the “son of man,” and that person is Jesus Christ as the New Testament apostles and Christ himself confirmed. Montgomery acknowledges that the messianic view is “the eldest and, in past Jewish and Christian exegesis, the prevailing opinion.” For example, over fifteen hundred years ago Jerome was espousing this view. Slotki notes that rabbinical exegesis interpreted this person to be the Messiah, and Jeffery points out that the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) accepted this interpretation.

Though Hartman declares that this figure has “no messianic meaning,” A. Bentzen argues that the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra 13 could not all have been incorrect in seeing a messianic individual in Dan 7. For example, John 12:34 states: “The crowd spoke up, ‘We have heard from the Law that the Christ [the Messiah] will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’?” In this passage the terms “the Christ” [the Messiah] and “the Son of Man” are used interchangeably. It may be inferred that the people of Jesus’ day already had come to identify the Danielic “Son of Man” as the Messiah.

However, the most compelling evidence for the messianic identification of the son of man is furnished by Christ himself. In Mark 14:61–62 he identified himself as that “Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” There is no other passage in the Old Testament to which Christ could have been referring. Furthermore, when Christ made the claim, the high priest said, “You have heard the blasphemy” (Mark 14:64), demonstrating that Jesus was understood to ascribe deity to himself. Young asserts, “The employment of this title by Jesus Christ is one of the strongest evidences that He attributed Deity to Himself.”

“Son of man” is especially common in the eschatological passages of the New Testament (cf. Matt 16:27–28; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; and elsewhere), and the phrase “coming in clouds” is understood in Matt 24:30 as a reference to the return of Christ. Finally, other passages portray Christ with the same kind of glory, power, and authority as is set forth in Dan 7 (e.g., Isa 2:2–4; 9:6–7; 11:1–10; Ezek 34:23–24; Matt 28:18; Phil 2:9–11; Rev 19:1ff.; 20:4–6).

Besides being a divine title, “son of man” sets forth the humanity of the Lord. Christ would be God, but he would also partake of human nature. Also, whereas all the features of absolute rule are ascribed to the son of man, the authority bestowed upon Christ here does not refer to his inherent sovereignty or deity. Rather, a new phase of his work is described. Christ reigns in the hearts of believers in a spiritual sense today, but this passage describes the bestowing of a physical kingdom through which he will someday rule the earth. All of the other kingdoms described in this chapter are real, earthly empires; and it is best to see this kingdom as real and earthly as well.

As this passage makes clear, that kingdom will be universal. All peoples, nations, and every language group will worship him. It also will be eternal, in stark contrast to the worldly empires, which will be destroyed. Though his rule on earth will last one thousand years (cf. Rev 20:4–6), Christ’s sovereignty will not end after the millennium but will continue throughout eternity.

Another important truth is set forth in this passage. Two persons are clearly distinguished in vv. 13–14, the “son of man” and the “Ancient of Days.” If the “son of man” is Christ, then the “Ancient of Days,” who is also deity, must be God the Father. Here then is an Old Testament glimpse of the plurality of persons in the Godhead. The Son is presented to the Ancient of Days that he might receive his Father’s gift, namely, a universal kingdom (cf. Ps 2:6–9).—Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 207–210.

Milton S. Terry,

13. Came with the clouds—Such a coming or movement of God himself is a familiar figure in the poetic language of the prophets. Comp. Psalm 18:9–11; 97:2; 104:3. “Who maketh the clouds his chariots, who walketh upon the wings of the wind.” Isaiah (19:1) speaks of Jahveh as “riding upon a swift cloud, and coming unto Egypt” to execute judgment, and Nahum (1:3) says: “Jahveh has his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.” But in this passage in Daniel one like unto a son of man is represented as thus coming to the ancient of days and receiving a kingdom at his hand. Whether the clouds, or some of the ministrant thousands of verse 10, brought him near before him is not clearly stated, for the subject of the verb brought is left indefinite, and may be treated as impersonal, and so equivalent to “he was brought.”

14. There was given him dominion—The dominion is here described as an everlasting dominion, and a kingdom which shall not be destroyed, and is obviously the same as that which was symbolized by the stone that was “cut out of the mountain without hands.” See chap. 2:44, 45. It is described in the same terms as that of the Most High God, in chaps. 4:3, 34; 6:26, and must be identical with the kingdom of the heavens which rule (4:26), the eternal dominion of him “who changeth the times and the seasons: removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (2:21).

Here we observe a remarkable advance in Messianic prophecy. It is the distinct conception of a son of man receiving from the eternal God the dominion of heaven and earth. We conceive this Son of man as identical with the Messianic prince of chap. 9:25, 26; presented also again in chaps. 10:21, and 12:1, under the symbolical name of Michael. His “coming with the clouds” is the basis of such New Testament language as that of Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark. 13:26; and Rev. 1:7. His receiving dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, is explained in John 5:22, 27: “The Father hath given all judgment unto the Son, and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is Son of man.” So, too, in Matt. 28:18: “There has been given to me all authority in heaven and upon earth.” Comp. also Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22; Acts 2:36; Eph. 1:20, 21; Phil. 2:9, 10. How he has his saints associated with him in this dominion is seen in verses 18 and 27, below. The originality and grandeur of this conception of the Messiah place the Book of Daniel very high among the pre-Christian records of this hope of Israel.—Milton S. Terry, The Prophecies of Daniel Expounded (New York; Cincinnati: Cranston & Curts; Hunt & Eaton, 1893), 39–41.

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION