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.
