My Other Blogs:

Apologetics Lane
Bible Difficulties Answered
Charismata Matters
Gospel Crumbs

Gospel Meals

Quotes and References

Remembered Music

My Comments on other Blogs

• Page Two
• Page One

[or here: Page Two; Page One]

The Most Important Blogposts in This Blog

This blogpost lists what I (subjectively) believe to be the most important blogposts in this blog. There are three sections. The first section is on the Deity of Christ. The second section is on the Trinity or the Plurality of God. The third section is on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Each section has links to blogposts where the most important links (as I perceive it) are above, and with the lesser links below. For example, in the section on The Deity of Christ my blog "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah" (which is nearer the top) is much more important than my blogpost "The Spirit of Jesus" (which is near the bottom of the section).

Here's my main Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism

Here's a link to my blogpost where I've collected links to outside blogs where I've commented and interacted with others on the topic of the Trinity: Blog Comments on the Trinity

The Deity of Christ

Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Son by John Gill

Markan Christology

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources

The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg

The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18

Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity

Jesus as God by Murray J. Harris

The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

The Requirement to Love Jesus Is Evidence of Jesus' Divinity

The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity

The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity

Concerning 1 John 5:20 ( from The Trinity: Evidences and Issues)

Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity

Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds

Doxologies to Christ

The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings

Jesus the True and Proper SON of God

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father

Jesus Lord of the Sabbath

John 20:28 And Its Proximity To John 20:30-31 

God in the Midst

Lord [Jesus Christ] Willing? God's Will and Christ's Will

The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah

Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah 

The Spirit of Jesus

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

Matthew 1:23 and "ho theos"

Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill

Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ

Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted

God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39

Is the "Oneness" of John 10:30 a "Oneness" of Purpose or Being?

Jesus' Omniscience

Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"? 

Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics

Melchizedek Resembles the Son of God, Not the Other Way Around

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy 

Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?

Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58

 

The Trinity or Plurality of God

The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill 

Links to John Gill's Chapters on the Trinity in His Work "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God

Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead

Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill

Edward Henry Bickersteth's Books In Defense of the Trinity

All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)

Omniscience of the Persons of the Trinity

The Aaronic Blessing Is Highly Suggestive of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity

Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]

Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity

Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner

F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel

The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint

Speculative Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation

Why Do Trinitarian Prooftexts Have "So Many Problems"?

 Interactions with Mike Gantt

Part One:  F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel

Part Two:  Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner

 

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit

Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Holy Spirit by John Gill

Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality

The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament 

The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns

Do the Father and Son Love the Holy Spirit?

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

 

---

 

 Some eye opening articles from the Jews for Jesus website:

Jewishness and the Trinity

The Trinity: Questions and Answers

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?

 

 

AI on Daniel Waterland and Samuel Clarke

 

 I asked various AI the following question. Remember to take AI answers with a grain of salt:

Who more accurately interpreted the early church fathers, Daniel Waterland or Samuel Clarke?

ChatGPT said:

This is a deep and important historical-theological question. Both Daniel Waterland and Samuel Clarke were prominent 18th-century Anglican theologians, but they had very different theological agendas, especially in how they interpreted the early Church Fathers.

To answer your question—"Who more accurately interpreted the early Church Fathers?"—we need to look at:

1. What each man believed.

2. How each used the Church Fathers.

3. How fair or historically accurate their interpretations were.

---

🧠 1. Theological Profiles

🔷 Daniel Waterland (1683–1740)

• High Church Anglican theologian.

• Defender of Nicene orthodoxy and Trinitarianism.

• Strong opponent of Arianism, Deism, and anti-Trinitarian thought.

• Believed the early Fathers faithfully preserved apostolic doctrine, especially on the Trinity, sacraments, and church authority.

• Wrote extensively on patristic theology, particularly to refute heterodox views.

🔶 Samuel Clarke (1675–1729)

• Influential but controversial Anglican theologian and philosopher.

• Advocated a subordinationist view of the Trinity (often called "Arianizing").

  • He argued that the Son is divine, but inferior to the Father in nature and authority.

• Used the Church Fathers (especially pre-Nicene ones) to argue that the early Church did not believe in consubstantiality or Nicene orthodoxy.

---

📚 2. How They Used the Fathers

Waterland:

• Deeply patristic in his method.

• Quoted and analyzed Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and others to argue that:

  • The early Church believed in one divine essence shared equally by Father, Son, and Spirit.

  • The Nicene Creed was a faithful expression of what the Fathers taught.

• Argued that apparent subordinationist language in the Fathers refers to economic roles, not ontology.

Clarke:

• Selectively used early Fathers—especially Origen, Justin Martyr, and Eusebius—to support a non-Nicene reading.

• Claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity evolved and that subordination was the original view.

• Argued that later Fathers like Athanasius distorted the earlier teaching to support Nicene orthodoxy.

---

⚖️ 3. Who Interpreted the Fathers More Accurately?

🟩 Waterland is generally regarded as the more accurate interpreter, for these reasons:

• He read the Fathers in historical and theological context, aware of terminological development (e.g. how "homoousios" evolved).

• He didn't ignore or downplay subordinationist language, but contextualized it within a broader Nicene framework.

• Modern patristic scholarship generally supports Waterland’s claim that:

  Pre-Nicene Fathers had undeveloped Trinitarian language, but the core belief in the full divinity of the Son and Spirit is there in seed form.

🟥 Clarke’s approach is now seen as anachronistic and selective:

• He cherry-picked quotes and neglected broader context (e.g., the unity of worship and divine attributes ascribed to the Son).

• He read post-Enlightenment rationalism into ancient texts.

• His subordinationism is now considered a misreading of developmental theology, not a recovery of lost truth.

As J.N.D. Kelly, a leading 20th-century scholar of early Christian doctrine, put it:

“The pre-Nicene Fathers undoubtedly subordinated the Son to the Father, but this was part of the process of articulating the Trinity, not a denial of the Son’s deity.”

---

🧭 Final Verdict

Theologian	Interpretation of Church Fathers	Verdict
Daniel Waterland	Careful, contextual, patristically informed; supports Nicene orthodoxy	✅ More accurate
Samuel Clarke	Selective, rationalist, subordinationist; downplays historical development	❌ Less accurate

✅ Waterland is widely recognized as the more faithful interpreter of the early Church Fathers, especially in relation to Trinitarian theology.

Would you like to see how each of them handled a specific Father like Origen, Athanasius, or Justin Martyr?

 I asked the same question of Duck.ai

 

The question of who more accurately interpreted the early church fathers between Daniel Waterland and Samuel Clarke is a matter of scholarly debate and can depend on various factors, including the specific context of their interpretations and the theological positions they held.

Daniel Waterland (1683-1740) was an English theologian known for his defense of the Nicene orthodoxy and his opposition to Arianism. He emphasized the importance of the early church fathers in understanding Christian doctrine, particularly in relation to the Trinity and Christ's divinity. Waterland's works often sought to demonstrate the continuity of orthodox beliefs from the early church through to his own time.

Samuel Clarke (1675-1729), also an English theologian, was known for his rationalist approach to theology and his emphasis on reason in understanding faith. Clarke's interpretations of the early church fathers were often more critical and analytical, focusing on the philosophical implications of their writings. He is perhaps best known for his work "A Discourse Concerning the Unchangeable Obligations of Natural Religion," which reflects his views on morality and divine law.

In terms of accuracy, Waterland is often regarded as more aligned with traditional orthodox interpretations of the early church fathers, particularly in defending the Nicene Creed. Clarke, on the other hand, while insightful, may be seen as more innovative and less traditional in his approach.

Ultimately, the assessment of who interpreted the early church fathers more accurately can vary based on theological perspectives and the specific issues being considered. Scholars may favor one over the other depending on their own doctrinal commitments and the aspects of the early church fathers' writings they prioritize.

 I asked similar questions of Meta AI:

 

Both Daniel Waterland and Samuel Clarke had differing interpretations of the early church fathers, particularly regarding the Trinity. Waterland, a defender of catholic orthodoxy, believed the early church fathers supported the consubstantiality of the Father and Son in a generic sense. He argued that unitarians, like Clarke, misinterpreted certain texts, such as 1 Cor. 8:6, which mentions "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." Waterland claimed this passage doesn't exclude the Son from being God, but rather distinguishes between idols and the true God.

Waterland's views on the Trinity have been described as "social" with a liberal dose of negative mysterianism, emphasizing the mystery of God's nature. He insisted his interpretation was the ancient catholic view, focusing on pre-Nicene fathers and the Bible.

In contrast, Samuel Clarke's views were more aligned with Arianism, which posits Jesus as a created being, inferior to God the Father. Clarke likely interpreted the early church fathers through this lens.

Given the analysis, it seems Daniel Waterland's interpretation might be closer to traditional Trinitarian understanding, while Clarke's views lean toward unitarianism. However, both authors are known to "bend the material to their own ends," according to some critics.

Key differences in interpretation:

Trinity: Waterland supports the traditional Trinitarian view, while Clarke leans toward Arianism or unitarianism.
Scriptural interpretation: Waterland emphasizes the context of passages like 1 Cor. 8:6, arguing they don't exclude the Son's divinity, whereas Clarke likely sees these passages as supporting a hierarchical view of God and Jesus.
Early church fathers: Both authors claim the early church fathers support their views, but Waterland's interpretation seems more aligned with catholic orthodoxy ¹.

answer the question again without favoring Trinitarianism

Both Daniel Waterland and Samuel Clarke interpreted the early church fathers differently. Waterland, a staunch Trinitarian, believed the early church fathers supported the co-eternality and consubstantiality of the Father and Son. Clarke, on the other hand, had a more nuanced view, aligning with Arianism or semi-Arianism, emphasizing the Father's supremacy.

Interpretive differences:

Trinity: Waterland's interpretation emphasizes the coequality of the Father and Son, while Clarke's view highlights the Father's authority and the Son's derived divinity.
Scriptural interpretation: Both authors cite early church fathers to support their views on passages like 1 Cor. 8:6, but Clarke sees the passage as supporting a distinction between the Father and Son, with the Father as the supreme God.

Given the context, Samuel Clarke's interpretation might be seen as more accurately reflecting the pre-Nicene fathers' views, which didn't always emphasize the coequality of the Father and Son. However, both authors' interpretations are influenced by their own theological perspectives.

It's worth noting that both authors have been criticized for "bending" the early church fathers' writings to fit their own theological views. Ultimately, determining who more accurately interpreted the early church fathers depends on one's own theological perspective and understanding of the historical context.

be objective and answer the question again. Don't favor any theological position. Just tell me the truth without sugar coating.

Daniel Waterland and Samuel Clarke had differing interpretations of the early church fathers. Waterland's views were shaped by his Trinitarian perspective, while Clarke's views were influenced by Arianism or semi-Arianism.

Historically, scholars have noted that both authors engaged in selective readings of the early church fathers. Waterland's interpretation emphasized passages supporting co-eternality and consubstantiality, while Clarke focused on passages highlighting the Father's supremacy.

Objectively, it's clear that both authors' interpretations were shaped by their own theological biases. Neither Waterland nor Clarke provided a completely neutral reading of the early church fathers.

In terms of historical accuracy, both authors' interpretations have been subject to critique. Waterland's views might be seen as more reflective of post-Nicene orthodoxy, while Clarke's views might be more in line with some pre-Nicene fathers. However, both authors' interpretations are influenced by their own theological agendas.

Ultimately, determining who more accurately interpreted the early church fathers requires a nuanced understanding of the historical context and the theological perspectives of both authors.

You didn't answer the specific question. Stop fudging and stop trying to please all sides. Answer the question objectively.

Based on historical analysis, Samuel Clarke's interpretation of the early church fathers is generally considered more accurate, particularly regarding the pre-Nicene period. Clarke's views on the Trinity, which emphasized the Father's supremacy and the Son's derived divinity, align more closely with the language and theology of early Christian writers.

Daniel Waterland's interpretation, on the other hand, reflects a more developed Trinitarian theology that emerged later in Christian history. Waterland's reading of the early church fathers tends to retroject later theological categories onto earlier texts.

In historical terms, Clarke's interpretation is often seen as more faithful to the pre-Nicene fathers, while Waterland's interpretation is more representative of post-Nicene orthodoxy.

 

The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ The Only Begotten Son of God

The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ The Only Begotten Son of God  by J.C. philpot

 http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

The Holy Spirit Bears Witness and Testimony

 

John 15:26 ESV

[26]  “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, who proceeds from the Father, HE WILL BEAR WITNESS ABOUT ME. 

Acts 5:32 ESV

[32] And we are WITNESSES to these things, AND SO IS THE HOLY SPIRIT, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Hebrews 10:15 ESV

[15] And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

Acts 20:23 ESV

[23] except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 

Romans 8:16 ESV

[16] The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 

Romans 9:1 ESV

[1]  I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—

A Brief Proof that Jesus is Worshipped in the New Testament

- Doxologies are an act of worship and there are doxologies to Jesus: 2 Pet. 3:18; 2 Tim. 4:17; Rev. 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14; Rom. 9:5; passim.

2 Peter 3:18 ESV

[18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST. TO HIM BE THE GLORY both NOW and to the day of ETERNITY. Amen.

See my blogpost linked below for more:

Doxologies to Christ:

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/doxologies-to-christ.html

- In Heb. 1:6 the author applies the Greek Septuagint's translation of angels worshipping Yahweh in Deut. 32:43 and Ps. 97:7 to Jesus. Proving Jesus is higher than the highest Angel, and proving Jesus is God because He receives the highest type of worship due only to Yahweh.

Deuteronomy 32:43 ESV

[43] “Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.”

Psalm 97:7 ESV

[7] All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!

Hebrews 1:6 ESV

[6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

- Isaiah 45:23 is arguably the most monotheistic verse in the most monotheistic chapter in the entire OT, and its worship is applied to Jesus in Phil. 2:10-11.

Isaiah 45:23 ESV

[23] By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

Philippians 2:10-11 ESV

[10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

- Revelation 5:13-14 has ALL CREATURES in heaven, earth, under the earth,  and in the sea WORSHIPPING both the Father and the Son.

Revelation 5:13-14 ESV

[13] And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” [14] And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

- Calling on Jesus is an act of worship. It parallels calling on Yahweh in the Old Testament [Ps. 116:4, 13, 17; 145:18]. In fact, calling on Yahweh in Joel 2:32 is applied to Jesus in Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2. Cf. Acts 9:14; 22:16; 2 Tim. 2:22

Psalm 116:4, 13, 17 ESV

[4] Then I called on the name of the Lord: “O Lord, I pray, deliver my soul!”

[13] I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord,

[17] I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of the Lord.

Joel 2:32a ESV

[32] And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD [YHWH] shall be saved....

Romans 10:13 ESV

[13] For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [i.e. Jesus] will be saved.”

1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV

[2] To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together WITH ALL THOSE WHO IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, both their Lord and ours:

Acts 9:14 ESV

[14] And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who CALL ON YOUR NAME.”

Acts 22:16 ESV

[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, CALLING ON HIS NAME.’

2 Timothy 2:22 ESV

[22] So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who CALL ON THE LORD from a pure heart.

- Prayer is an act of worship, and Jesus is prayed to in the NT: 2 Cor. 12:8ff.; Acts 1:24; 7:59-60; 9:10-16; John 14:14 [critical text has "if you ask *ME* anything in my Name"]

- The Prophecy of Dan. 7:13-14 has the Son of Man being served. The Hebrew word there for "serve" is pelach.

As Artison Rex wrote: QUOTE

//This term (pelach) is reserved for ritualistic service and worship in the book of Daniel. In Daniel, all peoples and nations worship the Son of Man. Earlier in Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the golden statue, stating they only worship God. So if the Son of Man is worshipped, that implies divinity, since worship (pelach) is reserved for God. This parallel between the forced worship of the statue and the rightful worship of the Son of Man is a strong argument for His deity.

• Reserved for Deity: In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to pelach (worship) Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, reserving this term for God alone.

• Divine Honor for the Son of Man: In 7:14, the Son of Man receives pelach from all nations—a direct parallel to Yahweh’s exclusive right to worship. This inversion of Daniel 3 underscores His divinity.

The scene in Daniel 7 clearly recalls the earlier false worship of the golden statue where all peoples were to serve it. This kind inclusio structure is often done in Biblical material. Before in Chapter 3, the three Jews refused to do so; saying they worship God alone; but here all people rightly worship this Son of Man figure. This indicates the Son of Man is a hypostasis of God, since only YHWH is worthy of this worship or service (pelach).//

END QUOTE

- Jesus is bowed down to in a religious context which connotes worship and which is denied even to angels and false gods [Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9; Rom. 11:4]

kamptō [Phil. 2:10-11]

proskuneō [Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52] 

Philippians 2:10-11 ESV

[10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Matthew 28:17 ESV

[17] And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

Luke 24:52 ESV

[52] And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Theological Implications of the Son of Man in Daniel 7

Copied from a Facebook post by Artison Rex

Theological Implications of the Son of Man in Daniel 7

Daniel 7:9–14 (LSB)

9 “I kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days was seated... 13 In my night visions, I saw one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. 14 To Him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples and nations should serve Him. His dominion is everlasting, unyielding; His kingdom indestructible.”

Introduction: A Figure of Paradox

The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 presents a profound paradox—He is both human and divine. While grounded in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) symbolism, this figure reflects Israel’s monotheistic theology, challenging pagan divine kingship and foreshadowing the Messianic hope fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

I. Divine Attributes of the Son of Man

A. Cloud-Rider: A Divine Motif

In ANE cultures, cloud-riding was a well-known divine attribute, especially associated with Baʿal in Ugaritic mythology. The Hebrew Bible appropriates this imagery and applies it exclusively to YHWH, asserting His supremacy.

• Deuteronomy 33:26

"There is no one like the God of Jeshurun,

Who rides the heavens (rokhev shamayim) to your help,

And through the skies in His majesty."

• Psalm 68:4 (68:5 in some versions)

"Sing to God, sing praises to His name;

Extol Him who rides on the clouds (rokhev ba-aravot),

By His name Yah, and exult before Him."

• Significance: The phrase rokhev ba-aravot ("rides on the clouds") mirrors Baʿal’s title rkb ʿrpt ("Rider of the Clouds") in Ugaritic texts. Here, YHWH is declared the true "cloud-rider," usurping Baʿal’s epithet.

• Isaiah 19:1

"Behold, YHWH is riding on a swift cloud (hineh YHWH rokhev al av kal)

And comes to Egypt;

The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence."

• Significance: YHWH’s arrival on a cloud signals judgment against Egypt and its gods, emphasizing His supremacy over pagan deities.

• Nahum 1:3

"YHWH is slow to anger and great in power,

And YHWH will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.

In whirlwind and storm is His way,

And clouds are the dust of His feet (avan shchak raglaiv)."

• Significance: Clouds are portrayed as mere dust beneath YHWH’s feet, underscoring His transcendent power over natural forces.

Significance: The Son of Man’s coming on the clouds (Dan 7:13) is a direct divine identifier, aligning Him with YHWH’s cosmic sovereignty and eschatological authority.

Polemic against Baʿal: By using Baʿal’s own title—“cloud-rider”—for YHWH, the Hebrew Bible subverts Canaanite religion. Daniel furthers this polemic by assigning the same imagery to the Son of Man, implying He shares in YHWH’s identity.

• Polemic Against Baʿal: Baʿal was worshipped as the storm god who "rides the clouds" in Ugaritic mythology (e.g., KTU 1.2 IV). By appropriating this imagery, the Hebrew Bible subverts pagan claims and asserts YHWH’s exclusive divinity.

B. Universal Worship (Pelach)

The Aramaic term pelach in Daniel is a liturgical term reserved for deity. Its use in Daniel 7:14 is theologically significant.

• Daniel 3: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to pelach Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, insisting worship belongs to God alone.

• Daniel 7:14: All peoples pelach the Son of Man.

Implication: This is not civil homage but cultic worship. The Son of Man is not merely a representative of God—He is worthy of the same worship that belongs to YHWH.

Another point is worship. This term (pelach) is reserved for ritualistic service and worship in the book of Daniel. In Daniel, all peoples and nations worship the Son of Man. Earlier in Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the golden statue, stating they only worship God. So if the Son of Man is worshipped, that implies divinity, since worship (pelach) is reserved for God. This parallel between the forced worship of the statue and the rightful worship of the Son of Man is a strong argument for His deity.

• Reserved for Deity: In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to pelach (worship) Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, reserving this term for God alone.

• Divine Honor for the Son of Man: In 7:14, the Son of Man receives pelach from all nations—a direct parallel to Yahweh’s exclusive right to worship. This inversion of Daniel 3 underscores His divinity.

The scene in Daniel 7 clearly recalls the earlier false worship of the golden statue where all peoples were to serve it. This kind inclusio structure is often done in Biblical material. Before in Chapter 3, the three Jews refused to do so; saying they worship God alone; but here all people rightly worship this Son of Man figure. This indicates the Son of Man is a hypostasis of God, since only YHWH is worthy of this worship or service (pelach).

C. Eternal Kingdom and Divine Sovereignty

• Daniel 7:14: His dominion is everlasting and indestructible.

• Daniel 2:44; Psalm 145:13: Echoes of YHWH’s eternal reign.

• The mirroring of Yahweh’s Rule is intentional: The Son of Man’s "everlasting dominion" (7:14) reflects Yahweh’s eternal sovereignty (Psalm 145:13; Daniel 2:44). His kingdom, unshakable and divine, transcends human dynasties. Thus, The Son of Man’s "everlasting dominion" (7:14) intentionally mirrors the eternal reign of Yahweh (Dan 2:44; Ps 145:13). Showing that He is a hypostasis of Yahweh.

• His kingdom will not be destroyed, affirming divine sovereignty.

Conclusion: The Son of Man’s reception of eternal dominion, worship, and divine attributes confirms His identity as a divine figure.

II. Human Duality and Hypostatic Tension

A. The Title “Son of Man”

While in Ezekiel, the term "son of man" emphasizes human frailty, in Daniel 7, it denotes a transcendent figure. He appears human but exercises divine authority, a union that prefigures the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

B. ANE Parallels and Biblical Innovation

• ANE Precedent: Rulers like Pharaoh were seen as hypostases (embodiments) of gods (Ra/Horus). 

• No Deification of Humans: Unlike Pharaoh or Ba’al’s proxies, the Son of Man is not a deified human. He is a heavenly figure, pre-existent and transcendent, He is Yahweh incarnate and the Messiah.

• Daniel’s Transformation: The Son of Man is no mere deified king. He is a heavenly figure, distinct – yet, inseparable from Yahweh, executing divine judgment (7:10–12).

• Polemic Against Paganism: The cloud-rider motif and universal worship subvert ANE idolatry, positioning Yahweh’s agent as the true cosmic sovereign.

Daniel’s vision is thus a monotheistic innovation. It preserves divine transcendence while introducing a distinct, personal mediator who embodies YHWH’s rule—without polytheism.

III. Jesus Christ: Fulfillment and Controversy

A. Jesus’ Use of the Title "Son of Man"

Jesus refers to Himself as “Son of Man” over 80 times in the Gospels, connecting His mission to Daniel 7:

• Mark 2:10–12: Authority to forgive sins.

• Matthew 25:31–32: Judge of the nations.

• Mark 14:62: Seated at the right hand of Power, coming with the clouds.

B. Trial Before Caiaphas: The Turning Point and Explosive Declaration

“I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62).

This reference to Daniel 7 and Psalm 110:1 is the theological climax:

• Sitting at God’s right hand: A claim to divine authority.

• Coming on the clouds: A claim to divine identity.

• High Priest’s response (Mark 14:63): Tearing his robes, the formal sign of hearing blasphemy (Lev 10:6; 21:10).

• Verdict (Mark 14:64): Blasphemy.

C. The Scandal of Hypostatic Union

• Blasphemy Charge:

• Divine Equality: Sitting at God’s "right hand" (Psalm 110:1) and cloud-riding (Daniel 7:13) implied shared divinity—a clear blasphemous claim in Second Temple Judaism.

• The High Priest’s Reaction:

• Tearing His Robes (Mark 14:63): A ritual act signaling horror at blasphemy (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10).

• Verdict: "You have heard his blasphemy!" (Mark 14:64).

Why This Was Blasphemy:

• Divine Identity: In Second Temple Judaism, claiming to sit with God or share His throne was unthinkable (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).

• Hypostatic Tension: While ANE cultures accepted kings as divine hypostases (e.g., Pharaoh as Ra’s embodiment), Judaism strictly rejected human-divine merging. Jesus’ claim to be Yahweh’s hypostasis—

• Hypostatic Union: Jesus’ claim to be both human and divine shattered Jewish monotheistic boundaries, prompting the High Priest to tear his robes (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10).

• Daniel’s Son of Man operates as a monotheistic hypostasis—a unique heavenly figure embodying Yahweh’s rule without compromising His singularity. While rooted in ANE patterns of divine mediation (e.g., Pharaoh as Ra’s hypostasis), the vision transcends them, offering a theological innovation: a divine-human agent who is both distinct to Yahweh and yet identified as Yahweh. He is presented to YHWH as YHWH Himself. This figure became a cornerstone for later messianic and Christological developments, bridging the transcendent and immanent in a way that both echoed and challenged ANE thought.

• Jesus’ use of the "Son of Man" title was neither accidental nor merely messianic. By invoking Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 at His trial, He claimed to be the divine agent of Yahweh’s kingdom—a hypostasis in a Jewish context that allowed no such category. To the High Priest, this was blasphemy; to Christians, it was the revelation of God’s ultimate Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14). The tearing of robes symbolizes the rupture between old paradigms and the new covenant, where the Son of Man’s divine-human identity becomes the cornerstone of redemption.

In Second Temple Judaism, no category existed for a human sharing YHWH’s throne or receiving worship. Jesus’ claim introduces a new theological paradigm—a divine-human person who fulfills Israel’s hopes without violating monotheism.

IV. Theological Implications

A. Monotheistic Innovation

Daniel introduces a divine agent who is with God and as God. This anticipates Trinitarian categories, affirming the Son of Man’s distinct personhood yet shared identity with YHWH.

B. Eschatological Mediator

The Son of Man inaugurates God’s final kingdom (Dan 7:26–27). He executes divine judgment and ushers in everlasting righteousness.

C. Christological Foundation

Early Christians saw Jesus' resurrection and exaltation as the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision:

• Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:7: Jesus, the divine cloud-rider, returns in glory.

• John 1:14; Colossians 2:9: God’s presence now dwells bodily in Christ.

Conclusion: Bridging Heaven and Earth

Daniel’s Son of Man transcends ANE mythology, offering a vision of divine authority embodied in a human-like figure. For Israel, this was a polemic against idolatry; for Christians, it became the blueprint for understanding Jesus as both Messiah and God. The tearing of the High Priest’s robes symbolizes the rupture between old paradigms and the new covenant—a covenant where the Son of Man, crucified and risen, reigns as the cornerstone of creation’s redemption.

Daniel’s Son of Man is a transcendent figure embodying divine authority through cloud-riding, universal worship, and eternal kingship. These elements, combined with the human title, suggest a messianic figure who bridges the divine and human realms, challenging pagan claims while advancing Israel’s theological narrative. Early Christians saw Jesus as fulfilling this role, interpreting His resurrection and ascension as the ultimate enactment of Daniel’s vision (Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:7). This synthesis of human and divine motifs makes the Son of Man a cornerstone of biblical messianic expectation.

Final Reflection

The Son of Man in Daniel 7 stands as the cornerstone of biblical theology—a divine-human figure who is worshiped, enthroned, and sovereign over all. He is both divine and human, worshiped and enthroned, embodying the very tension at the heart of the gospel: fully God, fully man. In Him, Daniel’s vision reaches its fulfillment, and Yahweh’s eternal kingdom breaks into human history. His dual identity confronts us with an unavoidable decision—either to tear our robes in blasphemous rejection or to fall in reverent awe before the One who comes with the clouds, worthy of worship as Lord.