Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 7:13-18
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.
15 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. 16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things. 17 ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’
___________________________
This is an End Times vision. We see four powerful kingdoms, followed by one like a Son of Man receiving Dominion. Daniel tells us that this means four kingdoms will have power and that this will be followed by “the saints of the Most High” receiving the Kingdom – presumably one and the same as the dominion described as being given to one like the Son of Man.
Before we get into the commentaries, my first question is to ask about “saints of the Most High.” What is the original language used here and what is the range of interpretations for this verse. (When we get into the Commentaries we will find out if different version of the text phrase this differently.) We’ll look at Strong’s Dictionary, first, vie BlueLetterBible:
the saints h6922 = קַדִּישׁqaddîysh, kad-deesh’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H6918.:—Holy (One), saint. + H6918 = קָדוֹשׁqâdôwsh, kaw-doshe’; or קָדֹשׁ qâdôsh; from H6942; sacred (ceremonially or morally); (as noun) God (by eminence), an angel, a saint, a sanctuary:—holy (One), saint.
of the Highest Oneh5946 = עֶלְיוֹןʻelyôwn, el-yone’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H5945; the Supreme:—Most high. + H5945 = עֶלְיוֹןʻelyôwn, el-yone’; from H5927; an elevation, i.e. (adj.) lofty (comparison); as title, the Supreme:—(Most, on) high(-er, -est), upper(-most).
This is intriguing because it tells us who will be in charge of the End Times kingdom, but the identity of “the saints” is a bit obscure. Christians have interpreted this passage to be a prophecy of the Dominion of Christ and the Kingdom of His Church.
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. The version of the Septuagint is different in the last two clauses of this verse, “As the Ancient of days he came, and those standing around were present to him.” Although the reading here is supported by Paulus Tellensis, we suspect some error of copyists. Theodotion practically agrees with the Massoretic. The Peshitta renders the last clause, “Those standing before him approached him.” These earthly kingdoms having been destroyed, the new kingdom of God is ushered in. “A son of man” (not “theSon of man,” as in our Authorized Version) appears in the clouds of heaven. It is a question whether this is the King of the Divine kingdom, the personal Messiah, or the kingdom itself personified. It is agreed that, as the previous kingdoms were represented by a beast, a man would be necessary symmetrically to represent at once the fact that it is an empire as those were, but unlike them in being of a higher class, as man is higher than the beasts. Further, it is brought in line with the image-vision of the second chapter, where the stone cut out of the mountain destroys the image. But we must beware of applying mere logic to apocalyptic. In this vision we see that “a man’s heart” really meant weakness as compared with the courage and strength represented by the lion. Further, the point of distinction between this vision and that of Nebuchadnezzar is that this is more dynastic, looking at the monarchs, while the other looks at the powers—the empires as distinct from their personal rulers. Hence, while the Son of man here refers to the Messianic kingdom, it is in the Person of its King. It is to be observed that, while the beasts came up out of the sea, the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven. This indicates the Divine origin of the Messiah. That the writer might not apprehend this is no argument against this being really symbolized. When he comes to the throne of the Ancient of days, he is accompanied to the presence of the Judge by the attendant angels—a scene which might seem to justify the LXX. Version of Deuteronomy 32:43 as applied by the writer of the Hebrews.
The note here makes a good point. You can interpret the kingdom described in this verse, as being personified as a man rather than as a beast. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted as representing its specific ruler. However, as the note says, it is fair to interpret this vision as being about each kingdom’s monarchs. In which case, the last kingdom is governed by a King with divine attributes.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. The versions differ only slightly and verbally from this. The personal element is here made prominent. Compare with this Revelation 5:12, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” The Messianic kingdom, and with it the Messiah, was to be everlasting. The resemblance is great, as might be expected, between this statement and that in Daniel 2:44, “A kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people.” It is to be noted that even his dominion is bestowed upon him. The Ancient of days, whose sentence has deprived the other dynasties of theft empire, bestows boundless empire on the Messiah (Comp. Psalms 2:1-12. and 72.). Jeremiah’s account of the state of matters on the return from the Captivity (Jeremiah 30:21)is compared to this by Hitzig; but there it is not a king who is to come near before God, it is simply “governor” (mashal). In Jeremiah we have to do with a subject-people living in the fear of the Lord, but under the yoke of a foreign power.
This is an intriguing point, too. It is worth noting here that the Final Kingdom is bestowed upon “one like a son of Man” by the Ancient of Days. We might take that to mean, either, God bestows one final eternal Kingdom (with the Son of Man representing a Kingdom, and not a literal King of said Kingdom) or you might read it as God bestowing a Kingdom upon someone who is both man and divine. There is debate among both Jews and Christians as to how this passage should be interpreted.
It’s worth taking some time now to look at the two phrases, Son of Man and Ancient of Days.
“Son of man“, “son of Adam“, or “asa man“, are phrases used in the Hebrew Bible, various apocalyptic works of the intertestamental period, and in the Greek New Testament. In the indefinite form (“son of Adam”, “son of man”, “like a man”) used in the Hebrew Bible, it is a form of address; or it contrasts humans with God and the angels; or it contrasts foreign nations (like the Sasanian Empire and Babylon), which are often represented as animals in apocalyptic writings (bear, goat, or ram), with Israel which is represented as human (a “son of man”); or it signifies an eschatological human figure.
The phrase is used in its indefinite form in the Septuagint, Biblical apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The Greek New Testament uses the earlier indefinite form while introducing a novel definite form, “the son of man.”
History
Jewish Bible
The Hebrew expression “son of man” (Hebrew: בן–אדם, romanized: ben-āḏām) appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, the majority (93 times) in the Book of Ezekiel. It is used in three main ways: as a form of address (Ezekiel); to contrast the lowly status of humanity against the permanence and exalted dignity of God and the angels (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 8:4); and as a future eschatological figure whose coming will signal the end of history and the time of God’s judgment (Daniel 7:13–14).
Daniel 7 tells of a vision given to Daniel in which four “beasts,” representing pagan nations, oppress the people of Israel until judged by God. Daniel 7:13–14 describes how the “Ancient of Days” (God) gives dominion over the earth to “one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar ‘anash])”. The passage in Daniel 7:13 occurs in Biblical Aramaic.
Later, in chapter 7, it is explained that “one like a man” certainly implies a “human being” and also stands for “the saints of the Most High” (7:18, 21–22) and “the people of the saints of the Most High” (7:27). The “saints” and “people of the saints,” in turn, probably stand for the Israelites – the vision sees it that God will take dominion over the world away from the beast-like pagan “nations” and give it to human-like Israel.
“One like a son of man” with a sword among the seven lampstands, in John’s vision. From the Bamberg Apocalypse, 11th century.
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Although Daniel’s 7:13 “like a son of man” has been interpreted as standing for the Messiah (e.g. in Rashi’s Commentary on the Tanakh), this interpretation was probably introduced by later apocryphal and deuterocanonical works such as the Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch and 4 Ezra. Whether these messianic “Son of Man” references are genuinely Jewish or the result of Christian interpolation is disputed. An example of a disputed section is that of The Similitudes (1 Enoch 37–71) which uses Daniel 7 to produce an unparalleled messianic Son of Man, pre-existent and hidden yet ultimately revealed, functioning as judge, vindicator of righteousness, and universal ruler. The Enochic messianic figure is an individual representing a group (the Righteous One who represents the righteous, the Elect One representing the elect), but in 4 Ezra 13 (also called 2 Esdras) he becomes an individual man.
Ancient of Days is a name for God in the Book of Daniel. The title “Ancient of Days” has been used as a source of inspiration in art and music, denoting the creator’s aspects of eternity combined with perfection. William Blake‘s watercolour and relief etching entitled The Ancient of Days is one such example.
Judaism
This term appears three times in the Book of Daniel (7:9, 13, 22), and is used in the sense of God being eternal.
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
In the Zohar, the seminal document of Kabbalah that emerged in 13th-century Spain, there is mention of the Ancient of Ancients, and the Holy Ancient One – Atika Kadisha, variably interpreted as synonymous with the Ein Sof, the unmanifested Godhead. The Ancient of Days is the manifestation of the Ancient of Ancients within Creation. It refers to the most primary (“ancient”) source of creation in the divine will Keter (“Crown”).
Whenever Judgment looms and the forehead of the Impatient One is revealed, the Forehead of the Ancient of Ancients is revealed; Judgment subsides and is not executed.
In 16th-century Lurianic Kabbalah, Atik Yomin is systemised as the uppermost Partzuf (Divine “Countenance/Configuration”) in the rectification of the World of Atzilut (“Emanation”) after the “Shattering of the sephirot Vessels“. Keter of Atzilut acts as the guiding Divine motivation in creation, developing into two partzufim, Atik Yomin (Ancient of Days) and Arich Anpin (“Long Visage/Infinitely Patient One”). Atik Yomin is the inner partzuf of Keter, synonymous with Divine Delight, that enclothes within and motivates Arich Anpin, the outer partzuf of Keter, synonymous with Divine Will. Arich Anpin is said to extend down all levels of Creation in ever more concealed mode as the divine substratum of everything. The Zohar goes into great detail describing the White Head of God and ultimately the emanation of its anthropomorphic personality or attributes. In the descending realms explained by Luria, the Gulgalta (“Skull”-Keter Will) within Arich Anpin enclothes the Chesed (Kindness) of Atik Yomin, becoming the origin of the lights of the world of Atzilut; the Mocha Stima’ah (“Concealed Brain”—Chokmah Wisdom) within Arich Anpin enclothes the Gevurah (Severity) of Atik Yomin, becoming the origin of the vessels of the world of Atzilut. The Dikna (“Beard”) of Arich Anpinconstricts the infinite light originating from Atik Yomin in 13 channels of rectification to lower, relatively finite reality. The Merkabah text Re’ uyot Yehezkel identifies the Ancient of Days as Metatron.
Christianity
Eastern Christianity
The Ancient of Days, a 14th-century fresco from Ubisi, Georgia
Most of the eastern church fathers who comment on the passage in Daniel (7:9–10, 13–14) interpreted the elderly figure as a prophetic revelation of the Son before his physical incarnation.
Eastern Christian art will sometimes portray Jesus Christ as an old man, the Ancient of Days, to show symbolically that he existed from all eternity, and sometimes as a young man, or wise baby, to portray him as he was incarnate. This iconography emerged in the 6th century, mostly in the Eastern Empire with elderly images, although usually not properly or specifically identified as “the Ancient of Days.” The first images of the Ancient of Days, so named with an inscription, were developed by iconographers in different manuscripts, the earliest of which are dated to the 11th century. The images in these manuscripts included the inscription “Jesus Christ, Ancient of Days,” confirming that this was a way to identify Christ as pre-eternal with the God the Father. Indeed, later, it was declared by the Russian Orthodox Church at the Great Synod of Moscow in 1667 that the Ancient of Days was the Son and not the Father.
Western Christianity
In the Western Church similar figures usually represent only God the Father. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the Ancient of Days with God the Father, quoting Hilary of Poitiers‘ comment that “eternity is in the Father”.
The Book of Daniel also contains a reference to “someone like a son of man”, who is brought up close before the Ancient of Days, and to whom are given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him” (Daniel 7:13–14). Some Christian commentators have understood this to describe God the Father bestowing rulership over an everlasting kingdom upon Jesus (who is often called “the Son of man“), which would suggest that the Ancient of Days is not identical with Jesus. It has been noted that “Daniel’s vision of the two figures is the only one in which the two divine persons are seen face to face”.
Among ancient Jewish pseudepigrapha, the Book of Enoch states that he who is called “Son of man,” who existed before the worlds were, is seen by Enoch in company with the “Ancient of Days”.
Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days, Almighty, victorious, Thy great Name we praise.
In the hymn “O Worship the King” (lyrics Robert Grant, 1833), the last two lines of the first verse read:
Our shield and defender, the Ancient of Days, pavilioned in splendor and girded with praise.
I’ll add one additional note, before moving on. During the 2nd Temple Period, before and through the life of Jesus, there was an idea which was debated among Jewish religious leaders called “the Two Powers in Heaven.” Jewish religious leaders during this period took note of passages, such as this one in Daniel, and others where an a person who seems to be divine, interacts with God. The idea was that God might exist within two persons – as part of a Godhead. The teaching was ultimately considered a heresy within Judaism, however, Christianity may have played a role in that decision.
All that is to say, when the Christians started teaching that Jesus was God and One with God the Father, the idea was not wholly unfamiliar to its Jewish audience. There is a book on this topic:
Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Library of Early Christology) Paperback – August 1, 2012 by Alan F. Segal
In his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the “two powers” heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the “two powers in heaven” was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity. An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven is made available once again for a new generation.
Returning to the verses, in The Pulpit Commentaries and verse 15:
I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth, But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. The version of the Septuagint differs in some points from the Massoretic. In the fifteenth verse there is no reference to the spirit being in the body; it adds “of the night” after “visions,” and changes “my head” into “my thoughts.” The sixteenth verse presents no essential points of difference. In the seventeenth verse the differences are more considerable, “These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall be destroyed from the earth.” There seems a good deal to be said for the reading behind this version. The first variation, “kingdoms” instead of “kings,” may be due to logic, but it has further “destroyed from” instead of “arising out of,” which cannot have resulted from the Massoretic. The verb qoom,“to stand up,” followed by min,“from,” is not elsewhere used in the sense which we find in the Massoretic here. When one is prone on the earth, as Saul before the revelation of the witch of Endor, “he stood up from the earth” (1 Samuel 28:23, Targum Jonathan)—word for word as here. When Abraham (Genesis 23:3, Targum Onkelos) arose from before his dead, we have a similar construction. In 2 Samuel 11:2, “David arose from his couch.” This construction involves Change of position, either directly or implicitly. It is difficult to understand how the one reading arose from the other. The condensation of the sense as it appears in the Septuagint is not likely to be attained by a falsarius. In 2 Samuel 11:18 there is nothing calling for remark, save that the reduplication of “for ever and ever “is omitted. While Theodotion is nearer the Massoretic text, he too differs from it in some points—his rendering of nidnay by ἕξις. Schleusner thinks this probably a false reading for ἐκστάσις. However, in Judges 14:9 we have ἕξις used for “body.” In the seventeenth verse we have “kingdoms” instead of “kings.” The last clause agrees with the Massoretic, but there is subjoined αἱ ἀρθήσονται,“which shall be taken away”—an addition that suggests that some of the manuscripts before Theodotion had the same reading as that before the Septuagint translator. He renders yeqoomoon min by ἀναστήσονται ἐπί,showing that at all events he had a different preposition. The reduplication of “for ever and ever” is omitted. The Peshitta Judges 14:15 has “in the midst of my couch” instead of “in the midst of my body.” In the sixteenth verse it resolves the bystanders into “servants.” In the seventeenth verse the preposition is not min,but ‛al. Jerome, instead of corpus,“body,” has in his,“in these,”—as if he had read b‛idena instead of nidnay;he also in Judges 14:17 reads regna,not reges. The Massoretic text has some peculiarities. The first words afford one of the rare instances where we have the ‘ithpael instead of the hithpael; it may be due to scribal correction. In the seventeenth verse ‘inoon (K’thib) affords an instance of the frequent Syriasm in Daniel. The “Most High” is rendered by a plural adjective, עֶלְיוֹנִין (‛elyoneen);it is explained differently. Kranichfeld and Stuart regard it as pluralis excellentiae. Bevan and Behrmann regard it as a case of attraction, the latter giving as parallel instances, benee ‘ayleem (Psalms 29:1) and benee nebeem. The difficulty remains that neither the pluralis excellentiae nor change of number is known in Aramaic. The fact that this strange form has produced no effect on any of the versions makes the reading suspicious. Professor Fuller sees in this word a proof of Babylonian influence, but he does not assign his reason, We now enter a new stage in the development of this vision. After the wonderful assize has ended, Daniel dreams that he is still standing among these innumerable multitudes, and, feeling that all these things are symbols, he is grieved because he cannot comprehend what is meant by them. So from one of those attendants who crowd the canvas of his vision he asks an explanation, or rather “the certainty,” of this vision; he wishes to know whether it is s mere vision or of the nature of a revelation. This is a perfectly natural psychological condition in dreaming. In the act of dreaming we question ourselves whether we are dreaming or not; we may even ask one of the characters in our dream the question. The interpretation is interesting, but has been already, to some extent forestalled. A difficulty is seen by some commentators—how these four kingdoms could be said to arise, when one of them was nearing its fall. If we take the reading of the Septuagint, this difficulty is obviated. Saadia Gaon makes these four kings the nominative to the verb “receive” (wrongly translated in our Authorized Version, “take”), and maintains each of these empires shall hold the kingdom of Israel until the Messiah shall come. This view would necessitate grammatically that the Messiah should never come, but that the reign of these four world-empires should be prolonged into eternity. “The saints of the Most High,” in the thought of Daniel would be, of necessity, the Jews; for we need not discuss the possibility of the angels being the holy ones implied here—they always have the kingdoms of the world under them—but we may see the Israel of faith in this figure. The believers in Christ are the true Israel, and the kingdom of heaven which Christ set up is thus promised to fill the earth. The Church is thus the true ultimate state. If we regard the Church as a society formed of those who are mutually attracted to each other. have a mutual love for each other, end have a common love to God, then all the history of the world is tending towards the establishment of such a society, universal as the world. National hatreds are much less acute now than they were. Despite the efforts to rouse class against class, there seems more sympathy between classes than there was. The final break-down of national and class oppositions, not necessarily by the abolition of either class or nation, will prepare the way for the Christ-commanded love which is the tie that unites the members of the true eternal Church of God.
We looked at it initially, but the reminds us that the interpretation of who “the saints” ; “the holy ones” are is a key difference between Christian and Jewish interpretation of this passage. Both groups generally reject the idea that it refers to angels, though the term is sometimes used in other parts of the Old Testament text to refer to angels.
That brings us to a good stopping point. You might have more questions about “the fourth beast” and I have good news. So did Daniel. The next set of verses focus on his questions about that beast. Was it the Roman Empire? The British Empire? The Islamic Caliphate? Some kind of “return of the Nephilim” situation?
We’ll see if Daniel is given much clarity here next time.
