Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man

 By Michael B. Shepherd

[Michael B. Shepherd is a Ph.D. student in Old Testament Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, N.C.]

I. Introduction

No small amount of literature on the phrase “son of man” was produced over the course of the twentieth century. Indeed, perhaps no other phrase has been the subject of so many journal articles, monographs, and book chapters. It may even be asked whether or not there is really anything left to say. Two questions have always stood at the forefront of the discussion. Is the “son of man” in Dan 7:13 individual or collective? And is the use of “son of man” in the NT titular or non-titular? Debates over the origin of the “son of man” in Dan 7:13 and over the relationship of pre-Christian “son of man” concepts to the NT have surrounded these two basic questions.

The linguistic and exegetical tools of modern scholarship have been wielded for every conceivable interpretation of Dan 7:13 with the exception of what has been called by James Montgomery the earliest and past prevailing interpretation among Jews and Christians—the messianic interpretation.[1] Although a point of interest will occasionally be addressed by a scholar who holds to the messianic interpretation,[2] a sustained argument based on all the contextual evidence is nowhere to be found. This situation creates a host of problems for understanding the relationship between Dan 7:13 and the NT. The overwhelming consensus among critical scholars is that there is fundamental discontinuity between the “son of man” of Dan 7:13 and the “son of man” of the NT.

Here the proposed solution to the problem is that the “son of man” of Dan 7:13 is in fact an individual figure as identified by Jesus and the NT authors. Whatever else may be said about discontinuity between the testaments, a significant line of continuity is in view with the use of Dan 7:13 in the NT. In what follows, Dan 7:13 is examined in its immediate and larger biblical context with attention to alternative views (e.g., symbolic, angelic, mythological). Once the interpretation of Dan 7:13 has been established, the most widely accepted instances of dependence upon Dan 7:13 in the NT will be investigated. From this vantage point, some conclusions will be suggested in regard to Jesus’ general use of “son of man” as depicted by the NT authors. It is hoped that these conclusions will be of service to the larger field of NT theology.

II. Daniel 7:13

1. The Composition of Daniel 7

Daniel7dividesevenlyintotwohalves:thevision(Dan 7:1–14) and the interpretation (Dan 7:15–28). These two halves then break down into two main sections each. In the first section of the first half is the appearance of four beasts (Dan 7:1–8), the climax of which is the little horn speaking “great things” (Dan 7:8). In the second section of the first half is the judgment scene (Dan 7:9–14), the climax of which is the appearance of one “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13–14).[3] The second, interpretative half (Dan 7:15–28) has the general explanation of the vision (Dan 7:15–18) and the explanation of the fourth beast and the little horn (Dan 7:19–28). No explanation of the one “like a son of man” is offered.

On the contrary, those who hold to a symbolic interpretation believe that the one “like a son of man” is identified as “the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:18, 21, 22, 25, 27),[4] because the saints receive the kingdom (Dan 7:18, 27) just as the son of man does in the vision (Dan 7:14).[5] It is argued that the beasts symbolize kingdoms; therefore, the one “like a son of man” also symbolizes a group—the saints. But the interpretation makes it clear that the beasts symbolize kings, not kingdoms (Dan 7:17). To be sure, kings and kingdoms are somewhat inseparable in Daniel (cf. Dan 7:23), but they are also distinct. For example, in the vision dominion is given and taken away from the beasts (Dan 7:6, 12). Dominion is given and taken away from kings, not kingdoms. This is where the parallel with the saints breaks down in the symbolic interpretation, if the beasts are only understood as kingdoms. The saints receive dominion like kings (Dan 7:27).

The greatest difficulty for the symbolic interpretation comes with Dan 7:14. There all the peoples, nations, and tongues worship (פלח) the one “like a son of man” (cf. Dan 7:27). How can the saints possibly be the objects of this worship?[6] Not only would this be a blasphemous notion to the author of Daniel, but also it would make for an internal contradiction. The saints themselves are a people (Dan 7:27). Thus, they are included among the peoples of Dan 7:14 who worship the one “like a son of man.”

Each of the beasts, with the exception of the fourth beast, is said to be “like” a particular animal. But it does not follow that the figure in Dan 7:13 is also symbolic simply because he is “like a son of man.” It must be remembered that Dan 7:13 comes in the second section of the vision where the Ancient of Days appears. No one argues that the Ancient of Days is symbolic, and it is certainly plausible that the two primary figures in the second section of the vision are not intended to be symbolic. The expression “like a son of man” simply highlights the fact that the figure is unlike the beasts.[7]

Why then does the interpretation (Dan 7:15–28) focus on the saints instead of on the one “like a son of man”? The author apparently feels no need to explain thefigureinDan7:13, perhaps because he expects his readers to make the connection made by C. F. Keil: “.. . Daniel, like the other prophets, knows nothing of a kingdom without a head, a Messianic kingdom without the King Messiah.”[8] Furthermore, the saints are part of the explanation of the fourth beast and the little horn, features of the vision that occur before the appearance of the one “like a son of man.” The war between the little horn and the saints (Dan 7:21, 25) has nothing to do with the suffering of the one “like a son of man.”[9]

Before moving to the larger context of Daniel, it is imperative to say a word about the Theodotion and LXX renderings of Dan 7:13. Theodotion appears to be a straightforward translation of the Aramaic as it is in the MT, whereas the LXX is saying something quite different:

MT	וארו עם ענני שׂמיא בבר אנשׂ אתה הוה ועד עתיק יומיא מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי
θ	καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ῆν καὶ ἔως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν καὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ προσηνέχθη
LXX	καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῶ

The first variation is between μετά and ἐπί Does the one “like a son of man” come with the clouds or upon the clouds? Ordinarily God himself is on the clouds (e.g., Isa 19:1; Nah 1:3; Pss 18:10; 104:3), but he can also be surrounded by clouds (e.g., Ps 97:2). Although ἐπί may be a translation of an original על, it could also be a translation of עם with very little material difference from μετά.[10] The same may be said, in terms of insignificance, of the variation between the literal, periphrastic ἐρχόμενος ῆν and ἤρχετο.

The real challenge comes with ἔως τοῦ παλαιοῦ and ὡς παλαιός. Some scholars such as J. Ziegler see the LXX text as an error in textual transmission, and they emend the text to conform to Theodotion. Others argue that the LXX is identifying the one “like a son of man” with the Ancient of Days.[11] In other words, whereas Theodotion has two figures in view—the one “like a son of man” and the Ancient of Days to whom the son of man is presented, the LXX has only one—the one “like a son of man” is also like the Ancient of Days, and those who are present draw near to him. This is said to explain the description of Jesus in texts like 2 Thess 1:7–8 and Rev 1:14 where he looks like the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9–10.[12] The Aramaic text, on the other hand, keeps the two distinct, yet closely related.

2. The Larger Context of Daniel

At first glance, the book of Daniel divides easily into two parts: (1) Daniel and his friends (Dan 1–6) and (2) visions (Dan 7–12). The Aramaic portion of Daniel, however, overlaps these two parts (Dan 2:4b–7:28). Furthermore, ch. 7 is integrally related both to what precedes and to what follows.[13] The four kings/kingdoms of ch. 2 correspond to the four beasts of ch. 7. The everlasting kingdom of Dan 2:44 is presumably the same one received by the one “like a son of man” and by the saints in ch. 7. Chapters 8–12 then build on this basic schema of world history—four kingdoms followed by an everlasting kingdom. Chapter 2 sets all of this within an eschatological framework by means of the Hebraism “at the end of the days” in Dan 2:28 (cf. Dan 10:14). This phrase will be revisited in the discussion of the larger canonical context.

N. T. Wright has noted a close relationship between chs. 6 and 7:

Here [Dan 6], as there [Dan 7], the human figure is surrounded by threatening ‘beasts’; as we saw, the first beast in 7:4 is like a lion, making the connection with the previous chapter about as explicit as it could be. Here, as there, the king comes in his authority: Darius in ch. 6 acts the part that will be taken by the Ancient of Days in ch. 7. In both, the human figure (Daniel in ch. 6; the ‘son of man’ in ch. 7) is vindicated and exalted, lifted up out of the reach of the beasts. In both, the one true god is glorified, and the enemies of his people subjugated. Both end with a celebration of the kingdom/kingship of the one true god. Dramatically, poetically the sequence is identical.[14]

Thus, ch. 7 by no means stands in isolation from the rest of the book. Interestingly enough, although Wright takes a symbolic view of the one “like a son of man,” his observations concerning ch. 6 actually support the view that the figure is an individual.

Another interpretation of Dan 7:13 that has made appeal to the larger context of Daniel is the angelic interpretation. Nathaniel Schmidt has argued that the one “like a son of man” is Michael.[15] H. Kruse takes the figure to be the chief of the Angels of God.[16] J. Coppens’s position is that the figure represents the multitude of angels surrounding God, a combination of the symbolic and angelic interpretations.[17] Finally, Ziony Zevit has modified Schmidt’s view so that the angel is Gabriel instead of Michael.[18] The strength of the angelic interpretation lies in the fact that angels or possible angelic figures are described as “like the appearance of a man” (Dan 8:15; 10:18), “man” (Dan 9:21; 10:5; 12:6–7), and “as the likeness of the sons of man” (Dan 10:16). But Daniel is also called a “son of man” (Dan 8:17), and the Aramaic phrase “like a son of man” (כבר אנשׂ) is never used of anyone except the figure in Dan 7:13. The great weakness of the angelic interpretation is that nowhere in the Hebrew canon do angels receive dominion and worship (Dan 7:14). Thus, the angelic interpretation and the symbolic interpretation stumble over the same block.[19]

3. The Larger Canonical Context

The canonical consciousness of the book of Daniel can be demonstrated in a number of ways. The character Daniel, like Esther, is cast as a Joseph-like figure (Gen 37–50) who is raised to prominence among foreign royalty in order to be an instrument for the purposes of God among the nations. From another perspective, the “decree” (דבר) of Dan 9:25 has been said to point to the decree of Cyrus that closes the Hebrew canon in expectation of the Messiah (2 Chr 36:23). But perhaps the most striking inter-textual feature of Daniel is the earlier-mentioned Hebraism “at the end of the days” (באחרית וימיא) in Dan 2:28. The actual Hebrew phrase occurs in Dan 10:14 (באחרית הימים). The uniqueness of the phrase can be seen in its sparse use within the Pentateuch—it occurs four times (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29)—and in its key role in the compositional strategy of the Pentateuch. John Sailhamer has demonstrated that three of the occurrences of the phrase within the Pentateuch (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 31:29) stand at the beginning of major poetic seams in which a major character from the preceding narrative proclaims a coming king from Judah “at the end of the days.”[20]

The phrase falls into disuse in the Former Prophets. Although the hope of a Messiah (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 22:51; 23:1) and an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–13) is expressed, the fulfillment is not. Each successive king is marked by failure to some degree. The phrase then reemerges (Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1). Once again, the hope is a future king (Hos 3:5). The two final occurrences of the phrase come in Daniel; thus, it has an important function in each division of the Tanak.

The use of “at the end of the days” in Daniel links the eschatology of the book to that of the rest of the canon. Therefore, the coming king from Judah is the most likely candidate for the head of the everlasting kingdom in Daniel (Dan 2:44; 3:33; 4:31; 6:27; 7:14, 18, 27). God is the ruler of the kingdom, and he gives it to whomever he pleases (Dan 4:14, 22, 29). His choice is the coming king from Judah—the one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13.

Others who have looked to the larger canonical context have concluded that the book of Ezekiel is the key to understanding the one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13.[21] The frequent use of “son of man” (בן אדם) in address to the prophet and the appearance of one “like the appearance of a man” (כמראה אדם) in Ezek 1:26 seem to be strong links to Dan 7:13.[22] Pierson Parker has even gone so far as to say that Jesus’ title in the NT indicated “prophetic leadership” and that Jesus “marked himself not as Messiah but as one who, in the line of Enoch, Daniel and Ezekiel, envisaged the Kingdom.”[23] It must be said, however, that Dan 7:14 indicates that the one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13 is much more than a prophetic figure. Moreover, the one “like the appearance of a man” in Ezek 1:26 is surrounded by fire and radiance (Ezek 1:27)—an appearance called the “likeness of the glory of the LORD” (Ezek 1:28). Although this description bears a striking resemblance to Dan 7:9, 10, 13, the focus is on “the glory of the LORD” (Ezek 3:12, 23; 8:2–4; 9:3; 10:4; 43:2–5; 44:4).

4. Extra-Canonical Interpretations

According to Delbert Burkett, “first-century interpreters of Daniel 7:13, in the extant sources at least, assumed that the one like a son of man was an individual, the Messiah.”[24] Burkett primarily has in mind the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–71), 4 Ezra 13, and the midrashic literature. The point here is not to argue that Judaism had a “son of man” concept, whatever that is. It is simply noteworthy that the prevailing interpretation at the time of Jesus and the NT authors was the messianic interpretation. The interpretation was not an invention of the early church, but a long-standing view based on careful reading of the Scripture.

Many modern scholars have jettisoned the valuable insights of the apocalyptic and rabbinic literature, arguing instead for a mythological identification of the one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13. This type of identification does not seek to interpret the text of Dan 7:13 as much as it seeks to discover the origin of a “son of man” concept. For example, Sigmund Mowinckel has sought the origin in the eastern religions and in the notion of a Primordial Man—the god Anthropos.[25] Oscar Cullmann has looked to the doctrine of a divine Urmensch among the oriental religions and has connected this with the idea of a second Adam.[26] Others have suggested Canaanite mythology,[27] the mythology of Tyre,[28] and Babylonian mythology.[29] Of course, only in the twentieth century did mythological interpretation arise, but no single view has attracted a large following. Louis Hartman comments that mythological interpretation has shown “more ingenuity than common sense.”[30] Likewise, Montgomery advises, “The first principle of interpretation, unless the composition is a crazy patchwork—and that may be said of some later apocalyptic productions, in contrast to the poetic simplicity of this chapter [Dan 7]—is to allow the document to speak for itself as the product of the writer’s mind, and to subordinate extraneous influences, unless they are required to make his thought intelligible.”[31]

III. The Use of Daniel 7:13 in the New Testament

1. Titular or Non-Titular

It is widely accepted that the phrase בר אנשׂ can be translated idiomatically into English as “man” or “human being.” But this hardly settles anything in the son of man debate, because there are other, more common words for “man” in Biblical Aramaic such as אנשׂ and גבר. In fact, it is legitimate to ask why כאנשׂ (“like a man”) from the immediate context of Dan 7:4 was not used in Dan 7:13. In an examination of the words of Jesus in the light of post-biblical Jewish writings and the Aramaic language, Gustaf Dalman argues that בר אנשׂ is uncommon, poetic, and capable of messianic designation.[32] Dalman did not have the benefit of the Cairo Geniza fragments of the Palestinian Targum—represented also in the later-discovered Targum Neofiti—that show how בר אנשׂ, or at least בר נשׂ, was more common than Dalman had thought.[33] Nevertheless, Dalman’s observation holds true for Biblical Aramaic in which Dan 7:13 is the only occurrence of בר אנשׂ, making it possible for someone to refer to the son of man, namely, the unique occurrence of בר אנשׂ found only once in all of Scripture at Dan 7:13. Wessel Scholten makes a similar point: “The appellation ὁ υίὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, as often as it was employed by Jesus, indicates that certain man who in human form was exhibited to Daniel in a symbolic vision (Dan 7:13), and, moreover, that King, appointed by God, who would rule humanely over men, the same who was indicated by the name Messiah.”[34] Olaf Moe insists that “son” should be retained in translation of the NT phrase,[35] and J. M. Ford goes so far as to say that “the Son of Man” is a euphemism for “the Son of God.”[36]

Geza Vermes, on the other hand, argues that bar nash(a) equals (ha) adam in the Targums and that bar nash(a) equals “human being,” an indefinite pronoun, or the pronoun “I” in the Talmuds.[37] He goes on to say that the messianic name was “cloud man” and that bar nasha was unsuitable as a title.[38] In a brief response to Vermes’s appendix, however, Matthew Black disagrees that the phrase was unsuitable for messianic use.[39] More recently Burkett has stated, “[W]hile the Aramaic bar enasha could be translated as ‘a man,’ the Greek ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου could not.”[40] Therefore, he concludes, “Future research will make progress only with the recognition that ‘Son of Man’ in the bulk of its occurrences [in the NT] is a title rather than a nontitular idiom,” and he agrees with early church fathers such as Tertullian that “the titular use of ‘Son of Man’ originated in a christological interpretation of Daniel 7:13.”[41]

2. Explicit Quotations

According to C. H. Dodd, Dan 7 “is embedded in the foundations of New Testament thought.”[42] An examination of the total number of allusions to this chapter is beyond the scope of this article. Even allusions to Dan 7:13 alone would prove to be better subject matter for a dissertation than an article, since any mention of “the Son of Man” could conceivably be a reference to Dan 7:13. For the purposes of the present study, the scope is limited to more or less explicit quotations from Dan 7:13.

The assumption here is that the text of the NT in its final form provides a trustworthy depiction of the words of Jesus. This assumption is rooted in the claim and nature of the text itself (e.g., 2 Pet 3:16). Beyond this, the words of Jesus are also taken as true, since Jesus is God in the flesh ( John 1:1, 14). Therefore, there is little interest here in the question of whether or not ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is a mistranslation of בר אנשׂ. The preceding discussion has established that the use of definite articles in Greek is a perfectly legitimate way of saying, “That man in Dan 7:13.” Furthermore, the following section does not question the authenticity of Jesus’ words in the NT. It is one thing to distinguish between his actual words and his authentic voice. It is quite another to attribute his words entirely to the early church. Such a practice is highly subjective. Moreover, those who engage in this type of criticism conveniently employ the term “inauthentic” to dismiss any evidence that interferes with their view of Jesus.

(a) Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27. These three verses are found in three parallel accounts. Each account plays an important role in the compositional strategy of its respective book. Furthermore, each of these verses is central to its respective account. Matthew 24:30 comes at the outset of the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25)—the last major discourse of Jesus within the book of Matthew, otherwise known as the Little Apocalypse. The eschatology of this section is occasioned by Jesus’ words about the destruction of the temple in Matt 24:1–2. The disciples ask what will be the sign of Jesus’ parousia and of the end of the age (Matt 24:3). Given Jesus’ immediate response in Matt 24:4–14, the impression is that Jesus is giving a plurality of signs rather than the single sign requested by the disciples. But Jesus makes it clear that he is speaking of what precedes the end when he says ἀλλ ᾿ οὔπω ἐστὶν τὸ τέλος (Matt 24:6) and καὶ τότε ἤξει τὸ τέλος (Matt 24:14). The main event comes in Matt 24:15, an explicit reference to the abomination of desolation in Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. Then, Jesus speaks specifically of his parousia in Matt 24:27. The sign of this parousia is given in terms of Dan 7:13 (Matt 24:30).[43] The actual rendering in Greek lies somewhere between the LXX and Theodotion: τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is fronted and placed in the accusative in order to fit the flow of thought; ἐρχόμενον is closer to the periphrastic rendering in Theodotion, but the use of ἐπί is from the LXX. The picture of power and glory in the presence of all the tribes of the earth is taken from Dan 7:14. The assumption is that there is one sign for both the parousia and the end of the age. Jesus does not give the timing of the end (Matt 24:36); he only urges preparation for the parousia (Matt 24:37, 39, 42, 44; 25:13, 31).

Much of what has just been said can also be applied to Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27. Both authors cast the surrounding discourse on his parousia as the last major teaching of Jesus before the events of the Passion Week. In Mark 13:26, the flexibility of Greek prepositions can be seen in the use of ἐν, a preposition not used by the LXX or Theodotion. Of course, ἐν is much closer to μετά than ἐπί, and its meaning here is most likely “with” rather than “in.” The relationship between ἐν and μετά is somewhat like the relationship between ב and עם. Unlike Matthew, Mark does not call the coming of the Son of Man “the sign,” but allows the context to speak for itself.

Luke also refrains from calling the coming of the Son of Man “the sign.” Moreover, Luke even omits the explicit reference to the abomination of desolation in Daniel. These two factors along with the rendering ἐν νεφέλη in Luke 21:27 have led some scholars to question whether or not Luke has Daniel in mind at all.[44] It has been suggested that the singular cloud anticipates Acts 1:9,[45] but this is not necessarily the case. If there is room for flexibility with the prepositions, then there is room for flexibility between the singular and the plural. This is certainly not true in every instance, but it is not immediately clear here how the difference substantially alters Luke’s dependence upon Daniel.

One final thought about these three texts is in order. The authors depict Jesus as quoting Dan 7:13 for the sign of his parousia to the earth. Some have questioned whether or not this is really the direction of movement in Dan 7:13 where the one “like a son of man” is presented to the Ancient of Days in a heavenly courtroom scene. In fact, it could be argued that Rev 5 is a better representation. There the Lamb comes to the One seated on the throne (Rev 5:7). They are surrounded by myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands (Rev 5:11; cf. Dan 7:10). The Lamb makes every tribe, tongue, people, and nation into a kingdom and priests who will reign on the earth (Rev 5:9–10; cf. Dan 7:14, 18, 27). But even Revelation has both a heavenly presentation and an earthly kingdom. The coming of the one “like a son of man” does not conclude with Dan 7:13, but continues with the kingdom of Dan 7:14.

(b) Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69. These three parallel texts are perhaps not as compositionally prominent as those in the preceding section, but they do display a messianic understanding of the title “Son of Man” as derived from Dan 7:13. In Matt 26:47–56, Jesus is betrayed and arrested. Jesus comments, “All this has happened in order to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets” (Matt 26:56). What follows is set within the context of what is revealed about the Christ in Scripture. Before the Council (Matt 26:57–68), Jesus is asked by the high priest whether or not he is the Christ, the Son of God (Matt 26:63). Jesus responds in the affirmative with a quote from Dan 7:13. The rendering ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is that of Matt 24:30. The phrase καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως is often taken as a quote from Ps 110:1, although it is at best a reference or an allusion rather than a quote. The LXX of Ps 110:1 has κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου. The word δυνάμεως is presumably taken from Ps 110:2–3 as a substitute for God (cf. Luke 22:69). It is worth mentioning that this alleged quote of Ps 110:1 takes the place of μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς (Matt 24:30)—an expression apparently derived from Dan 7:14 as noted above. Thus, it is entirely possible that καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως is a reference to the presentation of the one “like a son of man” before the Ancient of Days at which he is given dominion and honor (Dan 7:13–14).

After Jesus speaks, he is charged with blasphemy (Matt 26:65). Jesus’ self-designation as “the Son of Man” from Dan 7:13 is understood as a claim to be the Christ, the Son of God. Both Jesus and the Council are quite clear that the figure in Dan 7:13 is the Messiah. A similar phenomenon can be observed in John 12:34. C. F. D. Moule comments that this text “apparently assumes the identification of the Son of Man with the Christ”; on the other hand, Andreas Köstenberger observes that Jesus’ encounter with the crowd is characterized more by misunderstanding.[46] There is certainly confusion here, but over what? In John 12:32, Jesus speaks of being lifted from the earth. John then comments that this indicates the kind of death that Jesus would die ( John 12:33). The crowd questions the statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up,[47] and they point out that the Law teaches of how the Christ remains forever ( John 12:34). The titles “Son of Man” and “Christ” appear interchangeable. The confusion is not over the identification of the Son of Man with the Christ, but over the death of the Son of Man/Christ. What kind of Son of Man/Christ dies? Just as the Sadducees did not understand the Scriptures with regard to the resurrection (Matt 22:29), so the crowd did not understand the Scriptures with regard to the death of the Son of Man/Christ ( John 12:38).

Mark’s account of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, and appearance before the Council is quite close to Matthew’s. In Mark 14:61, the high priest says “Son of the Blessed One”—a euphemism for “Son of God.” Mark places καθήμενον after ἐκ δεξιῶν, and he uses μετά instead of ὲπί (Mark 14:62). Luke, however, orders his account somewhat differently. He places Peter’s denial (Luke 22:54–62) and Jesus’ beating (Luke 22:63–65) before, rather than after, Jesus’ appearance before the Council (Luke 22:66–71). In Luke 22:67, the Council, not the high priest, asks Jesus if he is the Christ, but not the Son of God. Luke omits “coming with the clouds of heaven” (Luke 22:69), but the omission is not as noticeable if “seated at the right hand. . .” is taken from Dan 7:13–14 rather than Ps 110:1. The inference from Jesus’ quote of Dan 7:13–14 is that he claims to be the Son of God (Luke 22:70).

(c) Revelation 1:7. The opening of the book of Revelation appears more epistolary than apocalyptic. After the introduction (Rev 1:1–3), John offers a salutation to the seven churches (Rev 1:4–6). Seemingly out of nowhere a quote from Dan 7:13 occurs (Rev 1:7), followed by a statement from the Lord God (Rev 1:8). Only then does the letter body open in Rev 1:9. The verses between the salutation and the letter body come across almost as an afterthought. It is as if the author completed the book only to return to the beginning and insert these verses as a fitting, programmatic stamp. Indeed, the message of Dan 7 looms large over the book of Revelation as a whole.

The quote of Dan 7:13 is intriguing. The absence of “the Son of Man” is its most salient feature. Of course, John sees one ὄμοιον υἱὸν ὰνθρώπου in Rev 1:13. Lest there be any doubt concerning the connection with Rev 1:7, this one “like a son of man” appears on (ὲπί) a cloud in Rev 14:14. The use of μετά in Rev 1:7 makes Theodotion the closest parallel, but the present indicative ἔρχεται is found in neither Theodotion nor the LXX. The fact that Theodotion lived at the end of the second century A.D. is somewhat troubling for a late first century date for the book of Revelation. Emanuel Tov, however, considers the issue resolved:

Theodotion’s revision was quoted in sources which preceded the period of the historical Theodotion by two hundred years or more. Therefore scholars came to the conclusion that these quotations were cited from a previous translation (“proto-Theodotion”) on which the historical Theodotion was based. We now know that the conjectured proto-Theodotion is none other than kaige-Theodotion tentatively ascribed to the middle of the first century BCE.[48]

The quote of Dan 7:13 is followed by a more explicit reference to Zech 12:10 than what was observed in Matt 24:30. The one who is coming is one who has suffered (cf. Dan 9:26). Yet another reference to Scripture comes in Rev 1:8. The Alpha and the Omega is the one who is the first and the last in Isa 41:4; 44:6. It is not entirely clear from “Lord God” that Jesus is the one speaking here (cf. Rev 21:6; 22:13). But if he is, then this is a remarkable statement about the coming one in Dan 7:13. The one “who is and was and is to come” is distinct from Jesus in Rev 1:4–5 and from the Lamb in Rev 4:8. The reference is to Exod 3:14.[49]

Revelation 1:7–8 thus sets the stage for the eschatology of the book. The one who has been pierced is coming. The one who is the beginning is also the end. And the one who has always been is also the one who will always be. Just as the beastly opposition is judged in Dan 7, so the same is judged in Revelation (Rev 17:8–14; 20:10, 12).[50] Just as the saints reign with their king in Dan 7, so they do in Revelation (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:4, 6; 22:5).

IV. Conclusion

The one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13 is an individual, messianic figure. This interpretation is borne out by the context of Daniel and by the larger canonical context, and it is confirmed by the early history of interpretation. However novel other extra-canonical interpretations might be, the most likely conclusion remains that the figure in Dan 7:13 was intended to be understood by those who knew Scripture. Likewise, it is more likely that Jesus and the NT authors took “the Son of Man” as a title from Scripture (i.e., Dan 7:13) than from mythology or the Jewish apocrypha.[51]

The derivation of the NT “Son of Man” from Dan 7:13 is made evident not only by the fact that Dan 7:13 is quoted in the NT—”Son of Man” occurs in many other places outside of quotations from Dan 7:13—but also by the strategic placement of such quotations. The whole composition and eschatology of the Synoptic Gospels hinge on the passages in which are found Matt 24:30, Mark 13:26, and Luke 21:27. Texts like Matt 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69, and John 12:34 show that the Son of Man from Dan 7:13 is also the Christ, the Son of God. Finally, John sets forth the Son of Man from Dan 7:13 as the rubric through which the rest of the book of Revelation is to be read (Rev 1:7). The “Son of Man” is not simply a title that has taken a life of its own. It is inextricably tied to the one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13.

Modern exegetes need not abandon the messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13. If anything, the advances in exegetical method have strengthened such an interpretation. Moreover, scholars need not wince at the NT’s use of Dan 7:13. Jesus and the NT authors are perfectly aligned with the authorial intention of the book of Daniel. Future research awaits study of the NT Son of Man outside the quotations from Dan 7:13 and with the messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13 as the foundation.

Notes

1. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 317–20.
2. E.g., Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Daniel (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 7; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 90.
3. John Goldingay comments, “Indeed, it has been argued that the humanlike figure’s failure to appear in the interpretative section of the vision indicates that it is not a particularly important feature of the chapter” (Daniel [WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1989]). Goldingay balks at any attempt to identify the one “like a son of man.” On the other hand, Montgomery, who nevertheless holds to a symbolic interpretation, remarks, “The strength of the Messianic interpretation arises from the striking impression of the figure of the Son of Man...” (Daniel, 321).
4. E.g., Montgomery, Daniel, 318–20; Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), 24–25; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 291–97. Others take a middle position and argue that the one “like a son of man” represents, but is not identified with, the saints (e.g., C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament [London: SCM, 1967]; George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 146–47).
5. The LXX of Dan 7:27 has, “he gave to the holy people of the Most High” (ἔδωκε λαῶ ἁγίω ὑψίστου). Theodotion of Dan 7:27 has, “it was given to the saints of the Most High” (ἐδόθη ἁγίοις ὑψίστου). There is some question as to whether Theodotion chose not to translate עם or translated a text that did not have עם. Of course, ἁγίοις is semantically equivalent to λαῶ ἁγίω.
6. See Stephen R. Miller, Daniel (NAC 18; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 208. It is not uncommon for the verb פלח to be translated “serve” (e.g., KJV and NASB; see also Vulg.), although the NIV does understand it as “worship.” The majority of the verb’s usages in Biblical Aramaic come in the context of reverence paid to a deity (Dan 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 6:17, 21 [Eng., 6:16, 20]; but see Ezra 7:24). It is true that some of these can be understood as “serving God” (e.g., Dan 3:17; 6:17, 21 [Eng., 16, 20]), but the immediate context of Dan 7:14 includes the occurrence of פלח in Dan 7:27 where the service (or worship) is of a kind that is directed to the one true God alone in striking contrast to any service that could be rendered to a people. Indeed, the usages of this verb in Dan 7:14, 27 fall more into the semantic domain of סגד than that of עבד (a verb that can also mean “worship” in extra-biblical Aramaic). The parallels between these two verses suggest that פלח should be interpreted in the same manner for both cases. Too often the focus is on the dominion given both to the “man” (Dan 7:14) and the people (Dan 7:27) to the neglect of an equally consistent treatment of פלח as directed both to the “man” (Dan 7:14) and the Highest One (Dan 7:27). The people simply reign with the one like a son of man (cf. Rev 5:10), while the one like a son of man is worshiped together with the Highest One. Monotheism in the Hebrew Bible does not rule this out. The LXX (λατρεύω [Dan 7:14]; ὑποτάσσω [Dan 7:27]) and Theodotion (δουλεύω [Dan 7:14, 27]) renderings offer little in the way of definitive help. For xlp in the sense of “worship” in extra-biblical Aramaic see Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (1903; repr., New York: Judaica, 1996), 1178. The meaning “to split” does not apply to this discussion.
7. The older commentators (e.g., John Calvin) argued that the preposition k was employed to indicate that the vision was of the pre-incarnate Christ. That is, the figure was not actually a man, only “like” a man. This probably goes well beyond the author’s intention.
8. C. F. Keil, Daniel (trans. M. G. Easton; K&D 9; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866–91; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 646.
9. Statements in the New Testament about the suffering Son of Man (e.g., Matt 17:12; 26:24; Mark 9:12) have more to do with the cut-off Messiah (Dan 9:26) than with the war against the little horn.
10. See the studies by Eduard Hertlein, “Die Wolken des ‘Menschensohns’ (Dan 7:13),” ZAW 37 (1917): 134-36; Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 (CBQMS 19; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988), 109–14.
11. F. F. Bruce, “The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel,” OTS 20 (1975): 22-40; S. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God,”WUNT30(1983):22-25; M.Hengel, “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110:1, ” WUNT 69 (1993): 160.
12. This latter view has recently been vigorously disputed by Otfried Hofius, “Der Septuaginta-Text von Daniel 7:13–14: Erwa¨gungen zu seiner Gestalt und seiner Aussage,” ZAW 117 (2005): 73-90.
13. See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 617; Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 274.
14. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 295.
15. Nathaniel Schmidt, “The ‘Son of Man’ in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 19 (1900): 22-28.
16. H. Kruse, “Compositio libri Danielis et idea Filii Hominis,” VD 37 (1959): 193-211.
17. J. Coppens, “Le Fils d’Homme danielique et les relectures de Dan 7:13 dans les apocryphes et les e´crits du Nouveau Testament,” ETL 37 (1961): 5-51.
18. Ziony Zevit, “The Structure and Individual Elements of Daniel 7, ” ZAW 80 (1968): 385-96.
19. It may be added here that the mysterious figure who Nebuchadnezzar says is “like a son of god(s)” (Dan 3:25) is also called an angel by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:28; cf. Dan 6:23). The question remains as to whether or not Nebuchadnezzar’s identification of the figure reflects the author’s. Elsewhere Nebuchadnezzar, like Pharaoh in the Joseph narratives (Gen 41:38–39), is presented as knowledgeable about “a spirit of holy god(s)” (Dan 4:5; cf. Dan 5:11).
20. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 35–37; Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 209–12.
21. E.g., Walther Eichrodt, “Zum Problem des Menschensohnes,” EvT 19 (1959): 1-3; A. Feuillet, “Le Fils de l’Homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique,” RB 60 (1953): 170-202.
22. See Edwin A. Abbott, The Message of the Son of Man (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1909), ix-xi.
23. Pierson Parker, “The Meaning of ‘Son of Man,”‘ JBL 60 (1941): 157.
24. Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 113. Casey argues that a small remnant of the symbolic interpretation survived in the Syrian, as opposed to the Western, tradition (Casey, Son of Man, 51–70).
25. Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. G. W. Anderson; New York: Abingdon, 1954), 346–450.
26. Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 137–92.
27. E.g., J. A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery,” JTS 9 (1958): 225-42.
28. E.g., Julian Morgenstern, “The ‘Son of Man’ of Daniel 7:13f.: A New Interpretation,” JBL 80 (1961): 65-77.
29. E.g., G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Interpretation of Daniel 7, ” CBQ 45 (1983): 44-58.
30. Louis F. Hartman (chs. 1–9) and Alexander A. Di Lella (chs. 10–12), The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978), 219.
31. Montgomery, Daniel, 323.
32. Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (trans. D. M. Kay; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 235–40.
33. See Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2d ed.; New York: Praeger, 1960), 191–208.
34. Wessel Scholten, Specimen hermeneutico-theologicum: De appellatione τοῦ υίοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, qua Jesus se Messiam professus est (Trajecti ad Rhenum: Paddenburg & Schoonhoven, 1809), 67; quoted in Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 24; see also Emerton, “The Origin,” 225; Archer, Daniel, 90. The odd use of the Aramaic בר in Ps 2:12 could be an example of such reference already occurring in the Hebrew Bible.
35. Olaf Moe, “Der Menschensohn und der Urmensch,” ST 14 (1960): 119-29.
36. J. M. Ford, “‘The Son of Man’—A Euphemism?” JBL 87 (1968): 257-66; Ford points out that Jesus is charged with blasphemy in his use of the title (Matt 26:63–65; 27:43); see also Edwin D. Freed, “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 86 (1967): 402-9.
37. Geza Vermes, “The Use of בר נשׂ/בר נשׂא in Jewish Aramaic,” appendix in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, by Matthew Black (3d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 315–27.
38. Ibid., 327-28.
39. Ibid., 328-30.
40. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 93.
41. Ibid., 96, 23, 122.
42. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952), 69.
43. It has been suggested that Matt 24:30 also references Zech 12:10–12 (see D. A. Carson, Matthew [The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 505).
44. Casey, Son of Man, 177.
45. Ibid.
46. Moule, The Phenomenon, 90; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 386 n. 47.
47. Jesus does not use the title “Son of Man” in John 12:32. This is not, however, incontrovertible evidence that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου means “I.” Quite the contrary, Jesus does use the title in John 3:14 where he also speaks of being lifted up.
48. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 145.
49. The construction ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν in Rev 1:4 has been labeled “incorrect grammar” since the genitive case is to be expected with ἀπό. The nominative, however, works quite well as an indication of a quote from the LXX of Exod 3:14 (see David A. Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 13–14). See also Rev 11:17; 16:5.
50. In Rev 17:14 the war is waged against the Lamb (cf. Dan 7:21; Rev 11:7; 12:7, 17; 13:7; 16:14; 19:19; 20:8, 9).
51. Abbott, The Message, ix.