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.

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

originally posted 6/5/2015

This blogpost should be read in conjunction with my blogpost: Jesus the True and Proper SON of God 

The following is partly a rearranging and reworking of previous blogposts (e.g. HERE, HERE, HERE ).

In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus' favorite self-designation is "Son of Man."

 In Jewish understanding being the "son" of someone or some thing is to possess the same nature as that thing or person. This understanding and concept that kind begets kind and like begets like in the Jewish mind finds its partial yet primary origin in Genesis chapter one where each species produces offspring with its own nature.

11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.- Gen. 1:11-12

So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.- Gen. 1:21

24    And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds---livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.- Gen. 1:24-25

Notice the Old Testament phrase "sons of the prophets" (e.g. 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1). It meant that such persons were considered to be prophets themselves. To be called a "son of man" in the Old Testament meant to be a man (i.e. a human being). See the following Old Testament passages: Num. 23:19; Job 25:6; 35:8; Ps. 8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12; 56:2; Jer. 49:18; 49:33; 50:40; 51:43. The prophet Ezekiel was called by God "son of man" around 90 times! However, after the revelation of Dan. 7:13ff. the term "son of man" took on a new secondary eschatological meaning.

 13    "I saw in the night visions,
    and behold, with the clouds of heaven
        there came one like a son of man,
    and he came to the Ancient of Days
        and was presented before him.
14    And to him was given dominion
        and glory and a kingdom,
    that all peoples, nations, and languages
        should serve him;
    his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
        which shall not pass away,
    and his kingdom one
        that shall not be destroyed. - Dan. 7:13-14

Compare that Old Testament passage with the following New Testament passage.

 And Jesus said, "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

---

[The following is an excerpt from my blogpost titled Markan Christology]


Regarding Mark 14:62 and Mark 13:26 which allude to Dan. 7:13

This passage refers to the son of man "coming in the clouds." This is a clear reference to a divine being since in Semitic cultures only the gods (e.g.YHWH, Baal and other deities) rode on the clouds. They were the vehicles and chariots of the gods. According to Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser, Baal was the primary pagan God described and understood by pagans as the god who rode the clouds. [cued up at 1:29:32]. Everyone in the Semitic world knew about Baal. Baal was a major God. The cult of Baal was so pervasive and long lasting it endured till the time of the Romans. The Jews were in constant theological war against Baal worship. The Jews, in order to assert and make clear that YHWH (the God of Israel) was the true God rather than Baal, began describing YHWH in the Old Testament as the one who rode the clouds. Heiser goes on to say that in every instance of the Old Testament where a figure is riding the clouds it refers to YHWH (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:4, 33; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). With the one exception being Dan. 7:13 where the son of man is the one riding the clouds. This therefore strongly implies the divinity of the "Son of Man." Yet, Jesus applies that "Son of Man" passages to Himself. Jesus claimed to be the one who would be "coming with the clouds of heaven." The Septuagint in Dan. 7:14 states that people would "serve" the "son of man." According to James White (in his debate with Adnan Rashid) the underlying Greek word used in the LXX for "serve" refers to the highest kind of worship and service which only belongs to God. It's true that the Septuagint isn't an inspired translation of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, many of the 1st century Jews and Christians would have known this passage as it's found in a textual variant in the LXX and have known how Mark's claim that Jesus applied the passage to Himself is an indirect claim to full deity. This is why the High Priest and chief priests charged Jesus with blasphemy. He was claiming deity.

It should also be noted that in Mark 14:62 Jesus says "I am" (ego eimi in Greek). It's true that Jesus could merely be saying "I am [the Messiah]" without claiming to be deity. However, it's possible that the author of Mark is having Jesus use the Greek phrase "ego eimi" in order to have Jesus claim absolute deity, as the author of John in John 8:58 almost certainly did. Especially since Jesus uses the phrase in the context of claiming to be the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13. When Jesus responded in the way He did, the high priest charges Jesus with blasphemy.

What is blasphemy again? It is any reviling of God's name or person, or any affront to His majesty or authority. Or anything that takes away from the proper reverence and worship that God alone is rightly due. Therefore, one can blaspheme without claiming to be deity. One can also falsely claim to be deity and so commit blasphemy. In what way did the Council conclude that Jesus committed blasphemy?

Jesus doesn't seem to revile God's name or person. Apparently, the Jewish Council believed Jesus gave an affront to God's majesty and authority by 1. claiming to have or share God's authority OR possibly also 2. claiming to be deity. To commit the second includes the first but goes way beyond it.

---

In light of what was explained above, the term "Son of Man" as used by Jesus clearly implied more than merely being a human being. It was more than a term to Him, it was a title. A title suggesting a claim to full deity.

Notice how in Daniel's prophecy "one like a son of man" is described. Meaning, someone with the appearance or likeness of a human being rides on the clouds like the one true God. And so, we have here what appears to be a foreshadowing prophecy of the Messiah being a/the God-Man. God-like in one sense and Man-like in another sense. That nearly corresponds to the Christian doctrine of the incarnation whereby the 2nd person of the Trinity takes on a human nature without ceasing to be God or ceasing to possess His divine nature.

When one re-reads the Gospels and the instances where Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man, in many instances there seems to be a veiled claim to deity. For example:

The fact that Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic man suggests both omniscience and full divinity (Mark 2:1-12; Matt. 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26). It suggests omniscience on the part of Jesus because from all outward appearances Jesus was a mere human being. Who was he to forgive the sins of a person he knew nothing about. For all Jesus knew, the paralytic man was such a heinous sinner that that's why God punished him with paralysis. Who was he to reverse God's judgment? Or for all Jesus knew, the paralytic man was a relatively righteous person like Job who was suffering far beyond what he "deserved" relative to other human beings' just deserts and (incongruous) experience. Nevertheless, Jesus had the chutzpah (or nerve/guts/audacity) to forgive the paralytic of his sins.

Secondly, this incident suggests the full deity of Jesus because only God can forgive sins in that manner because ultimately all sin is an offense and an affront to God (directly, or indirectly because it's against humans who are made in God's image). The surrounding witnesses also knew and believed only God could forgive in that manner. There's a sense in which humans can forgive other humans for sins committed against them (i.e. the injured party). But the paralytic didn't sin against the human Jesus. They may have just met for the first time physically. The special sense in which Jesus forgave the paralytic was the kind of remission only God could rightfully dispense. That's why some in the crowd got angry at Jesus. It is true that later Jesus would grant the authority to remit sins to His disciples (John 20:23 [Possibly also Matt. 16:19; 18:18; 2 Cor. 2:6-10]). However, that was clearly a delegated authority which was only binding when it was consistent with the proclamation and reception of the gospel. The gospel of and about Jesus and His kingdom. The difference is that Jesus was the VERY FIRST human in a Jewish context to forgive sins. He did this contrary to all the cultural expectations of the orthodox Judaism(s) of the time. He did so as if it was His inherent prerogative rather than merely a delegated one. Moreover, Jesus did so by appeal to His being "the Son of Man" while on earth. Apparently in contrast to the Son of Man while in heaven.


Why was Jesus contrasting the Son of Man on earth with the Son of Man in heaven? Probably because He was alluding to Dan. 7:13. And so we've come full circle. The main point of this blogpost argues that Jesus' favorite self-designation - the Son of Man - was a subtle claim to deity. The forgiveness of the paralytic is just another example of a subtle (or not so subtle) claim to full deity. This is contrary to the popular claim by Unitarians and atheists that Jesus never claimed to be God (especially in the Synoptic Gospels).



 See also my blogposts:

Jesus the True and Proper SON of God

 Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

Also my comments on the parallels between Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven and Satan's attempt to replace God by ascending above the clouds of heaven. Apparently, what Jesus had inherently, Satan tried to usurp.