The Beast in Daniel 7 and The Son of Man

The Fourth Beast and the Son of Man in Daniel 7 Loren Lineberry, 2010
Daniel 7:7-14 – The Forth Beast
The following study is part of a larger project on the Aramaic and Hebrew text of the book of
Daniel. I am planning a reader’s guidebook to the text of Daniel, a work that intends to offer the reader
some insight into the use of the language that Daniel uses in his book. This passage is presented ahead of
time, owing to the centrality of the issues it presents.1
Analysis
7:7a After this, I continued looking in my visions of the night is a sentence that is an assertive,
continuing the dream report with attention to the fourth beast.
7:7b and, behold, a fourth beast – terrifying, terrible, and exceedingly mighty is a sentence that not
only serves to introduce the fourth antagonist, but also to begin pointing out his characteristics. Terrifying,
terrible, and exceedingly strong use a participle and three adjectives to describe this fourth beast.
Terrifying2 may imply that which causes a state of apprehension or fear, if we may take a cue
from the LXX reading. This fourth beast is to be regarded with fear, owing to the outcomes he seems to be
able to produce. Moreover, the use of the passive participle to express this fear implies that this beast is
typically regarded with fear.
1
All translations are the authors. The principle abbreviations are these: KB¹ and KB² are
references to Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, 2 vols., edited and translated by M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2001); BDB refers to
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and
English Lexicon; reprinted edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979); Holladay refers to William L. Holladay,
A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1989); the commentaries consulted include: D. J. Wiseman, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries¸
Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978); John D. W. Watts and James W.
Watts, ed., The Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel, by John Goldingay (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1989); Tremper Longman III, John H. Walton, Robert Hubbard, and Andrew Dearman, ed., The
NIV Application Commentary, Daniel by Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999); James
A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1927); J. C. L. Gibson, The Daily Study Bible, Daniel by D. S. Russell (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1981);
A. Cohen, ed., The Soncino Books of the Bible, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah, by Judah J. Slotki (New York: The
Soncino Press, 1992); Willem VanGemeren, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis, CD-Rom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000);and E. J. Young, The Prophecy of
Daniel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980). The principle grammars include Hans Bauer and
Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagbuchhandlung,
1962); Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introductory Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), abbreviated IBHS.
2
Terrifying glosses ‫[ הליחד‬Pe’al, participle passive]. The verb may be translated dreadful [KB²,
1850r], or possibly, terrifying [BDB, 1087]. The passive participle has a durative quality to it [Bauer-
Leander § 82 c]. The verb is used six times in Daniel, mostly in reference to an emotional experience
amounting to fear, alarm [4:2], and fear and trembling [5:19]. The LXX translator uses φοβερός, an
adjective that may be understood in an active sense as that which causes fear, that which is formidable or
as that which may be regarded with fear, especially with respect to consequences [LSJ, 1946].
1
Terrible is an adjective that may be more or less parallel with the preceding participle. The
adjective points to a characteristic of the beast as frightful,3 as terrible,4 or as what is dreadful.5
The description of this fourth beast as exceedingly strong continues the description of the
capabilities of this beast. The adjective translated strong may carry with it the connotations of powerful,
hard, stern, or severe.6 The cognate Hebrew adjective is used once of a power or force that one is not able
to contend with [Ecclesiastes 6:10].7 Overall, then, this adjective describes the power and force this beast is
capable of mustering.
7:7c with two rows of large, iron teeth continues the imagery.8 While the Aramaic noun occurs only
in chapter 7, its Hebrew cognate is fairly common in metaphors of angry and aggressive behavior. As with
the use of the noun in the Psalter, there is a sense of ruthlessness that fits the imagery here.
7:7d devouring, crushing, and trampling the rest under its feet is a line that uses participles to stress
the actions of this beast. The picture is of a formidable king/nation.
The participle – devouring – points to an ongoing activity of destruction.9 The Hebrew cognate –
‫– לכא‬is used in contexts that describe the effects of hostility in the form of destruction [see Proverbs 30:14;
Micah 3:3]. Indeed, even Yahweh, as we have noticed before is described in judgment as One who
consumes His adversaries [Isaiah 30:27]. The activity of this fourth beast is both violent and destructive.
The participle – crushing – also points to an ongoing and typical activity of this fourth beast. The
imagery is also of utter destruction.10 The Akkadian cognate describes that which is fine, in the sense of
being thoroughly pulverized. Thus, the figurative use of this verb implies a level of defeat that more or less
crushes an enemy into dust.
3
Rosenthal § 57.
4
KB², 1811r; BDB, 1080r.
5
See Van Pelt and Kaiser, “‫המיא‬,” in NIDOTTE. The LXX translator uses έκθαμβος, an adjective
that may be glossed amazed, astounded or terrible [LSJ, 506].
6
Robert H. O’Connell, “‫ףקת‬,” in NIDOTTE. The LXX translator uses ίσχυρός , an adjective that
suggests personal strength, that which is powerful, forcible, violent, severe [LSJ, 843].
7
Ibid.
8
The noun glossed teeth – ‫[ ןש‬noun, fm, dual] – signals, through the dual – two rows of teeth
[Rosenthal § 59]. The Hebrew cognate of this noun – ‫ – ןש‬is used figuratively in the Hebrew Bible of the
teeth of beasts sent by Yahweh in judgment [Deut 32:24; Joel 1:6], or an expression of Yahweh’s anger
[ Job 16:9 (anger and aggression)]; the term is used in expressions of anger and aggressive behavior of the
wicked [Psalm 35:16; 37:17; 57:5; Prov 30:14].
9
Devouring glosses the participle – ‫[ הלכא‬Pe’al, fm, sg]. For the ongoing or characteristic aspect
of the participle as a verb, see Rosenthal § 177. The verb may be glossed to feed on, to eat, to devastate
[KB², 1812r]; to devour, to devastate [BDB, 1810r]. The Hebrew cognate – ‫ – לכא‬is used in a figurative
sense of to devour, to slay, to consume, to destroy [BDB, 37].
10
Crushing glosses the participle – ‫[ הקדמ‬Haph’el, participle, fm, sg]. It may be translated to be
shattered, to fall to pieces, to break in pieces [BDB, 1089r]; to be crushed into small pieces, to ground up
fine, to crush [KB², 1855r]. In the Aramaic of Daniel, this verb is used in three different contexts: [1] in a
context of the ultimate victory of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of men [2:34, 35, 44, 45]; [2] in a
context that describes a terrible death of persons [6:25]; and in a context of the power of nations to destroy
their opponents [2:40; 7:7, 19, 23]. The Akkadian cognate – daqāqu – may give us a window onto the
sense of the verb, since this term points to what is fine [KB², 1855].
2
Finally, the writer tells us that this fourth beast is given to trampling the rest under its feet.11
The referent of the rest is probably the remains or what is left of the peoples crushed in the previous verb.
The image of trampling under the feet implies a callous lack of care or concern for what is left.
Overall, this fourth beast/kingdom is noteworthy for its use of the power it has. This kingdom
uses its power to consume adversaries, to grind them into dust, and to have very little concern for whatever
may be left behind. The imagery is that of total destruction.
7:7e moreover, it was different from all the beasts that were before it; for ten horns were upon it
are two sentences that add a crucial detail to the image of this fourth beast – ten horns.
The first new claim about this fourth beast is that it was different. In form, this verb is another
participle, again probably signaling what is an ongoing characteristic of this fourth beast. 12 The sense of
the verb simply implies that it differed from all the rest.
The reference to ten horns is what stands out about this fourth beast. In the vision, the report is
that ten horns were upon it.
That these ten horns were upon it implies possession.13 That these ten horns belong to this fourth
beast implies some further trait he possesses that differentiates him from the other three.
The reference to this beast’s ten horns is clearly figurative, but what is the implication contained
in the figure? To begin with, the horn is a symbol of strength.14 As used in the Psalms, the horn is the
strength to attack and put the life of another in jeopardy, indeed, the strength to attack and to do so
11
Trampling the rest under its feet glosses ‫ הספר‬Pe’al, participle, fm, sg] ‫[ הילגרב‬prepositional
phrase, using ‫ ב‬prefixed to a noun, fm, pl, construct with a 3rd, fs, suffix] ‫[ אראש‬noun, ms, sg, determined].
The literal word order yields the gloss – the rest under its feet trampling. The first noun – ‫ – אראש‬may be
glossed the rest, or the remains [KB², 1989], where the gloss the remains is a collective use. BDB, 1114,
offers the remainder, what is left outstanding. Bauer-Leander § 51 d´´ identifies the noun as an abstract
noun and glosses rest, remainder. Goldingay, 142, glosses trampling under foot what was left. The verb –
‫ – ספר‬is used in Daniel only in reference to the trampling activities of this fourth beast [7:7, 19]. The
collocation – to trample under foot [‫ ]לגרב ספר‬only appears in the Hebrew Bible in two passages [Ezekiel
32:2; 34:18]. Both of the Ezekiel texts suggest defiance and a definite lack of care for the objects of the
trampling. In the first case, 32:2, this picture fits a pharaoh of Egypt and in the 34:18 passage it fits the
people of Israel.
12
Was different glosses ‫[ הינשמ‬Pa’el, participle, fm, sg]. The participle may be glossed to be
different from [KB², 1999r; also BDB, 1116r].
13
Upon it is a prepositional phrase that uses a preposition – ‫ – ל‬that may signal a dative of
possession; accordingly, the sense of the phrase is belonging to him [KB², 1905; BDB, 1098r; Rosenthal §
79]. Whatever these ten horns stand for, they are possessions of this fourth beast.
14
The Aramaic here uses a form of the noun – ‫ – ןרק‬and there is also a Hebrew cognate – ‫ןרק‬. The
Aramaic noun is used fourteen times in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible, all of them in Daniel
[3:5, 7, 10, 15; 7:7, 8 (four times), 11, 20 (two times), 21, 24]. Of these, four are used of musical
instruments [3:5, 7, 10, 15]. Of the ten remaining, the waters become a bit more muddied. We can at least
begin with four very basic breakdowns: [1] the horn as a symbol of power [7:7]; [2] the horn as a symbol of
kingdoms/nations [7:8, 11, 20, 21, 24]; [3] the horn as symbol of the power to oppress the people of God
[7:21]; [4] the horn as symbol of power that is defeated by the Ancient of Days [7:24-26]. Overall, then the
use of the term horn in Daniel moves from power to aggregate power [nations] to aggregate power hostile
to the people of God to aggregate power defeated by the power of God. In the Hebrew Bible, the ‫ןרק‬/horn
is a symbol of the life threatening power of an adversary [Psalms 22:22; Ezekiel 34:21; Daniel 8:3, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9] or it can represent a particular king/nation [Daniel 8:20, 21].
3
powerfully and successfully. The reference to ten serves in two ways. To begin with, it shows that the
power of this fourth beast is greater then the one side of the bear, the three ribs in his mouth, and the four
wings and heads of the leopard.15 More to the point here, the number ten points to completeness.16 The
upshot is that the reference to ten horns signifies a level of power, especially the power to attack, which is
complete. Joyce Baldwin notes “Ten horns, five times the natural two, represents pictorially the
extraordinary power of the beast.”17
The tendency to interpret the ten horns in light of the ten kings in 7:24 may be premature.18 To
begin with, the writer has already told us that these ten horns are a possession of the first beast. These ten
horns belong to the fourth beast; they are characteristics that help make him the beast that he is. As we
have noted below, the ‫ןרק‬/horn is often used in the prophetic literature of the power to gore and destroy an
opponent. The net effect is that the reader should attend to this aspect of the imagery; we have here a beast
that is identified substantially in terms of its power to destroy.
The reader may infer that the writer of Daniel intends to emphasize power with this beast. Indeed,
in the next verse, a singular horn/human leader becomes the focus of attention. The relationship between
verse 7 and verse 8 may be that of the milieu [7] – power – out of which a particularly onerous leader
emerges [8]. If we look forward to 7:24a – as for the ten horns from this kingdom, ten kings will arise – the
reader may intuit some general referent in the ten horns to an empire as a whole, out of which ten kings
arise, but identifications, as we shall see in 7:24 are illusive. The reader is left with two conclusions: [1]
the ten horns are a figure of the power of an empire, and [2] the precise identity of this empire is
problematic.
7:8a The vision report continues with the next event – while contemplating the horns. Daniel is
described as contemplating.19 The sense of the verb is that Daniel was considering what he had seen,
striving for insight into the meaning of this vision of the ten horns.
7:8b This sentence asserts that, during his considerations of the ten horns, behold, another horn, a
smaller one, came up between them. What amounts to an eleventh horn now emerges; this horn will take
center stage at this point in the vision.
We are told that this horn came up between them.20 The same verb is used in 7:3, of the four
beasts that arise from the Great Sea. Here, the sense of the verb is simply to ascend. This smaller horn
ascends between them,21 emerging among or amid the others.
15
For the thought, see Goldingay, 164.
16
See P. Jenson, “‫רשע‬,” in NIDOTTE.
17
Baldwin, 140; see also Goldingay, 164; Young, 146-47.
18
Slotki, 57, sees a reference to the ten rulers of the Roman empire; ditto Young, 147; others intuit
a reference to the Greek kingdoms under Alexander the Great and the ten leaders who comprised the run of
the Seleucid line after Alexander [the period from roughly 331 B.C. to 164 B.C.], Russell, 117; a more
general form of this last view is that the ten horns refer to Greek kings, though which Greek kings Daniel
has in view is not certain nor especially relevant [Goldingay, 187].
19
Contemplating glosses ‫[ לכתשמ‬Hithpa’el, participle, ms, sg]. The verb may be translated to
consider, to have regard for [KB², 1987r]; to consider, to contemplate [BDB, 1114r].
20
Came up between them glosses ‫ןוהיניב תקלס‬. The verb in the sentence – ‫[ תקלס‬Pe’al, perfect, 3rd,
fm, sg] – may be glossed to come up, to go up [KB², 1938r]. The verb has an ANE background, including
an Arabic root – slq – to ascend, to mount, to climb, to scale [KB², 1938]; there is also a Babylonian
cognate – salāqu – that signals to climb up [KB², 1938].
4
The horn is described as a smaller one.22 The implication of smaller is variously interpreted.23
The reader is invited to read the adjective in terms of the diminutive character of this horn, all the more to
emphasize the efforts of Yahweh, implied in the passive verb in the next line – three of the first horns were
rooted up. While the human characteristics are pronounced, the place of Yahweh in the ascendancy of this
personage needs to be appreciated. Like the others before him, this personage emerges at the auspices of
the Lord of history.
7:8c The vision report continues with – and three of the first horns were rooted up before it. The
sentence begins the description of the aggressive nature of this small horn.
The action taken against the three horns is that they were rooted up.24 The passive sense of the
stem of this verb, as with the other passives in the previous verses, rhetorically underlines the sovereignty
of God in this activity. Indeed, the use of the verb in Ecclesiastes 3:2 stresses, in an overarching manner,
the ultimate sovereignty of God through time. Moreover, the verb is used in the Minor Prophet, Zephaniah,
of the judgment of Yahweh. The net effect is that this line is about what God is doing on behalf of this
small horn.
The reader needs to appreciate what is being communicated here about God. Yahweh is
instrumental in the ascendancy of this small horn on the scene in the Ancient Near East. As Goldingay
points out, God “clears the way for the small horn by removing three others.”25
21
Between them translates ‫[ ןוהיניב‬preposition, ‫ןיב‬, with a 3rd, ms, pl, suffix]. The preposition may
be glossed simply between [KB², 1833r; Rosenthal § 84; Bauer-Leander § 69 i]. Like the Hebrew cognate
– ‫ – ןיב‬the sense appears to be locative, pointing out that the smaller horn emerged among or amid the
others [IBHS 11.2.6b].
22
The adjective – ‫[ הריעז‬adjective, fm, sg] – may be glossed small [KB², 1866r], little, small
[BDB, 1091r]. This is the only use of the adjective in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible. The
Hebrew cognate – ‫ – ריעז‬is found within a semantic field for terms that represent what is “little, trifle,
insignificant,” [see “Little, trifle, insignificant” in NIDOTTE]. In the Hebrew Bible, the term refers to what
is quantitatively small or temporally brief.
23
Slotki, 57, affirms that the point is that this horn was small at first but then grew; he also cites
other rabbis who see in this adjective a reference to Titus, while another rabbi sees the reference pertaining
to the beginnings of papal rule in Rome. Young, 149, affirms that the reference serves to focus attention on
the eyes and mouth, which are the focal point of this beast. There are those who see in this smaller horn as
the ruler who is to come of 9:26, the abomination of 12:11, and the beast coming out of the sea in
Revelation113:1-10. He is identified as the head of the restored fourth world empire in Revelation 19:20,
and possibly he is the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4-8. Let it suffice to say that there are no
linguistic cues to these identifications or citations in either Revelation or Thessalonians to support them.
24
Were rooted up translates ‫[ ורקעתא‬Ithpa’el, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl]. The stem used here may be read
as either reflexive or passive [Bauer-Leander § 76 r; Rosenthal § 99], probably passive in this sentence.
The verb may be glossed to be plucked up [KB², 1952r]; to be rooted up [BDB, 1107r]; Holladay, 417r, to
be plucked out. This is the only appearance of the root in the Aramaic; the Hebrew cognate – ‫ – רקע‬is used
seven times in the Hebrew Bible [Genesis 49:6; Joshua 11:6, 9; 2 Samuel 8:4; 1 Chronicles 18:4;
Ecclesiastes 3:2; Zephaniah 2:4]. The use in the Zephaniah passage uses the term in a metaphor of the
judgment of Yahweh. The Ecclesiastes passage is justly famous – there is a time to plant and a time to
uproot what is planted. However one reads this entire paragraph, one conclusion, germane to our
discussion, is agreed upon by most readers of the passage – human events, including those most men would
regard as calamitous, are in the sovereign control of Yahweh. The “times” listed in the catalogue are God’s
times; they are most definitely not man’s.
25
Goldingay, 164.
5
7:8d The sentence now builds up to its climax, where this little horn is humanized – eyes like the eyes
of a man [were] in this horn, and a mouth speaking great boasts. There are two similes here: the simile
of the human eye and the simile of the mount making boastful claims. Both are traits and characteristics of
this little horn.
The mention of eyes like the eyes of a man opens the description. In the Hebrew Bible, the
‫ןיע‬/eye is used for the physical organ of sight. However, the noun is used as a figure of mental qualities.
Among these are arrogance,26 mockery,27 desire,28 selfishness,29 an absence of compassion,30 and
intentions.31 In its context, there more negative mental qualities could well be in play here. As Goldingay
notes, the eyes reveal “a person’s self-estimate, the pride and arrogance located in the inner person.” 32
Evidently, this self-estimate yields bold talk.
The humanization of this little horn continues by noting its mouth speaking great boasts. Once
more, we have a noun – ‫םפ‬/mouth – that has a Hebrew cognate used in a figurative sense. The ‫הפ‬/mouth in
the Hebrew Bible may point to deceitful speech,33 lying speech,34 perverted speech,35 destructive speech,36
foolish speech,37 evil speech,38 disruptive speech,39 seductive speech,40 and flattering speech.41 Overall, this
catalogue of verbal vices fits in well with the context. In this case, we have boastful speech as indicated by
speaking great boasts.42
26
Psalm 101:5; Isaiah 2:11.
27
Proverbs 30:17.
28
Ezekiel 24:16, 21, 25.
29
Proverbs 23:6.
30
Ezekiel 24:14.
31
Psalm 17:11.
32
Goldingay, 164; see also Baldwin, 140, and Montgomery, 291.
33
Proverbs 4:24.
34
Proverbs 6:12.
35
Proverbs 8:13.
36
Proverbs 10:6, 11; 11:19.
37
Proverbs 10:14.
38
Proverbs 15:28.
39
Proverbs 18:6.
40
Proverbs 22:14.
41
Proverbs 26:28.
6
The pronouncements of this small horn are indeed impressive. The use of the participle –
speaking – again implies a characteristic of this personage that is characteristic and ongoing with him. The
sense of the adjective – great boasts – seems to point to bragging speech, boastful speech, or possibly
blasphemous speech. Bauer-Leander opts for insolent speech, as does Holladay.43 Rosenthal simply
translates big words.44 The sense of the adjective glossed here simply posits the boastful or possibly the
insolent speech of this small horn. It should be noted that in 7:25, the same verb, used here as a participle,
is used as a finite verb – ‫ללמ‬/speak – of the blasphemous speech of this small horn. While the reader may
simply understand here a man who makes impressive pronouncements, ultimately, his speech will take on a
more draconian hue.
The simile of the man invites the question whether or not a human is being lifted out here. Is
Daniel hinting at some specific person? Some writers affirm that the small horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, a
view that is based on the fuller explanation of the small horn in 7:25, an explanation that does historically
fit the acts of Antiochus.45 Others see the small horn as a reference to the Antichrist.46 For now, judgments
on these matters must await the full reading of the entire chapter.
7:9a This set of sentences is a change in topic – the judgment of God. The visionary reports: I
continued looking as thrones were set up. This change of topic is reflected in the chiastic structure of
7:2-14 alluded to in our earlier discussion.47 That structure may be schematized thus:
The emergence of four great beasts – 7:2-8

The turning point: judgment – 7:9-10
The reversal of fortunes for the four great beasts – 7:11-12
Dominion granted to one like a son of man – 7:13-14
42
Speaking glosses a participle – ‫[ ללממ‬Pa’el, participle, ms, sg] – and great boasts glosses a single
adjective – ‫[ ןברבר‬adjective, fm, pl]. For the gloss of the entire participial phrase as communicating some
negative connotation – speaking insolently, speaking boastfully, or simply bragging – see KB², 1976.
Another option is to gloss speaking blasphemously [KB², 1976]. Ultimately, it may well be the case that
this gloss fits best in light of 7:25, referencing the hostile/blasphemous speech of this small horn. The LXX
glosses with the adjective – μεγάλη – an adjective that can connote a bad sense of over-great or impressive,
as with speech [LSJ, 1088]. The commentators differ somewhat. Slotki, 58, goes with speaking great
things, in the sense of defiant and blasphemous speech. Young, 147, translates as Slotki does with the
sense being pride and presumption in his speech. Goldingay, 142, glosses making great statements in the
sense of making impressive statements [164].
43
See Bauer-Leander § 94 d, and Holladay, 420; BDB, 1112r, prefers imposing.
44
Rosenthal § 44.
45
This is the view of Goldingay, 187, Montgomery, 291, Russell, 117.
46
See Young, 150; Longman, 190; VanGemeren, 345 [although antichrist is qualified in a general
way as those who are opposed to God]; Hagee, 176.
47
See the notes on 7:2, page 3.
7
Daniel reports that he kept on looking in his vision as thrones were set up.48 The reader should
attend to the nuance of the grammar/syntax of the conjunction with the perfect tense of the verb. It is not
likely that some kind of futurity is implied; this is an over-reading of the English conjunction normally used
in translation – until. The fact of the grammar/syntax is more amenable to the translation – as thrones
were set up. Accordingly, Walvoord’s assertion that in 7:9, Daniel “has a vision of heaven at the time of
final [emphasis mine] judgment on the nations” is quite wide of the mark. 49 There is judgment here, but it
seems to be judgment in the moment.
Moreover, 7:2 [the great sea], 3 [four beasts coming from the sea], 4 [the lion-eagle lifted from the
ground] all indicate activities on earth. 7:9 maintains continuity with this earthly perspective when Daniel
says – I continued looking as thrones were set up. The perspective in 7:9a seems yet to be earthly.
The Aramaic noun translated thrones – ‫ – ןוסרכ‬is used only in Daniel 5:20 and 7:9. In the first
use, ‫אסרכ‬/throne in reference to the royal throne of Nebuchadnezzar; here, it is used of the royal throne of
the Ancient of Days.50 In the former case, Nebuchadnezzar’s royal throne was taking form his, during his
tenure as king, for his overweening pride. So here, it would seem that this fourth beast is to be judged in
the here and now for his adversarial challenges to Yahweh.
In the Old Testament, the throne of Yahweh is the place from which He dispenses judgment and
justice in the here and now. For example, Psalm 9:5 tells us that the throne of Yahweh is the place from
which He judges righteously. In another striking example of the work that emanates from the throne of
God, we have the text in Psalm 11:4 that refers to the throne of God as the place from which He tests or
scrutinizes or puts to the test the sons of man. Finally, the throne of Yahweh is the place from which He
exercises His royal sovereignty (Psalms 47:9; 103:19). The upshot is that the fourth beast is the object of
this judgment, a fact that is made abundantly clear in 7:11. Whomever this particular fourth beast
represents, the overriding truth is that his boasts and arrogant challenges to the sovereignty of Yahweh will
be dealt with in his lifetime [Daniel 7:11c (the beast was slain)].
As we have seen in the earlier cases of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, nations and institutions
do not escape the judgment of God during their time. Of interest to the first readership of the book of
Daniel is the fact that those institutions and nations that are hostile to God and oppressive to His people are
under divine judgment and that divine judgment may be executed within the time frame of human history.
This fact should be taken to heart by the current readership, especially those who, like Daniel’s first
audience, suffer under the cruel tyranny of despotic political leadership. God both scrutinizes such
leadership and reserves the right to act accordingly.
48
As thrones were set up glosses ‫ יד דע‬.‫ וימר ןוסרכ יד דע‬functions as a conjunction with the perfect
[KB², 1943r; Rosenthal § 86; Bauer-Leander § 70 v]. It might be noted that the conjunction – ‫ – יד דע‬is
used with a perfect tense verb – ‫[ וימר‬Pe’il, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl]. The use of the conjunction with the perfect
would seem to preclude a future time reference [see Bauer-Leander § 109 l, m], but rather has a more past
sense attached to the use of the conjunction with the perfect [Bauer-Leander § 107 m], yielding the gloss –
as thrones were set up [for the gloss als, see Bauer-Leander § 107 m].
49
Walvoord, 163.
50
The noun glossed thrones – ‫[ ןוסרכ‬noun, ms, pl] – has an Akkadian cognate – kussw – that points
to a symbol of power, a royal throne, a seat of judgment, or a divine throne [I. Cornelius, “‫אסכ‬,” in
NIDOTTE]. The Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic noun – ‫ – אסכ‬appears frequently in reference to the
throne of Yahweh [Psalm 9:5 (the place from which Yahweh judges righteously), 8; 11:4 (the place from
which Yahweh tests the sons of men; where ‫ ןחב‬implies to scrutinize, to assay); 47:9 (the place from which
Yahweh reigns over the nations); 97:2 (righteousness and justice are the foundations of the throne of
Yahweh); 103:19 (the place from which Yahweh exercises His royal sovereignty); see also passages in
Isaiah that also stress the present and ongoing nature of the throne of Yahweh – Isaiah 9:6; 16:5; 66:1].
There are also uses of ‫ אסכ‬that underline the permanent or perpetual nature of the throne of Yahweh [Psalm
9:8; 45:7; 889:4, 14, 30, 36; 93:2; 132:12].
8
7:9b The depiction of judgment in heaven continues with an opening description of the Judge Himself –
He is called ancient of days.
The language – ‫ – ןימוי קיתע‬appears in the Aramaic Bible only in Daniel 7 [7:9, 13, 22].51 There is
no grammatical reason for capitalizing these words; the gloss could just as easily be ancient of days. The
use of the genitive relation here seems to underscore the longevity that characterizes the days of this person.
Accordingly, the nuance of the phrase stresses the ancient aspect of this personage.
The kind of baggage that ‫קיתע‬/ancient brings with it suggests that which endures and thus
surpassing.52 The adjective, as used in the Proverbs passage, points to what is time-honored and
venerable.53 Accordingly, the one who was seated upon this throne is one who is august, esteemed, and
revered.
7:9c-d These sentences describe the appearance of the venerable personage on the seat of the throne. His
clothing is depicted as like snow, white and the hair of his head [was] like wool, pure.
The noun glossed clothing – ‫ – שובל‬simply refers to the garments the person was wearing.54 The
Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic noun appears only once in reference to the garments of a divine figure. In
Isaiah 63:2, the garments of the Anointed One are red garments, a metaphor of judgment.
They are described as like snow, white.55 The language implies both purity – snow – and royal
splendor – white. Overall, the appearance of this personage is dazzling and luminous.
51
Ancient of Days glosses an adjective – ‫[ קיתע‬adjective, ms, sg, construct (see BDB, 1108 for the
form in the construct)] – modifying a noun – ‫[ ןימוי‬noun, ms, pl]. The adjective – ‫ – קיתע‬may be glossed
old, aged [KB², 1955r]; one advanced, aged, in days [BDB, 1108r]; Holladay, 417r, simply goes with old,
aged. The LXX translator uses παλαιός, an adjective [of old date, ancient (LSJ, 1290r)]. There are
Hebrew cognates, two forms being adjectives – ‫[ קתע‬used only in Proverbs 8:18 in reference to eminent or
surpassing wealth, or more than likely – enduring wealth] and ‫[ קיתע‬removed, old used in 1 Chronicles 4:22
and Isaiah 28:9]. The noun glossed days – ‫ – םוי‬is used in the plural of Yahweh [Job 10:5 (Yahweh’s days
are not those of a mortal); Psalm 89:30; 93:5 [forevermore]. We should also note that neither the adjective
nor the noun is made definite, thus the translation the ancient of days is really an interpretation. Two
translations, those of Baldwin and Goldingay, gloss so as to point out the great age of the one on the
throne; Goldingay translates – one advanced in years [142] – and Baldwin opts for one that was ancient of
days [141]. The point of the imagery would be to underline the wisdom and the respect due the one sitting
on the throne. The use of the genitive - ‫[ קיתע‬adjective, ms, sg, construct (see BDB, 1108 for the form in
the construct)] – modifying a noun – ‫[ ןימוי‬noun, ms, pl] – underlines a characteristic of the days of this
person [Bauer-Leander § 89 a; Bauer-Leander translates – alt an Tagen – ancient in days].
52
Proverbs 8:18.
53
KB¹, 905.
54
See KB², 1907r. This noun is used in reference to the Anointed One who comes in judgment
with comfort, vengeance and judgment in Isaiah 63:1-6. In this context, the Hebrew cognate of the
Aramaic noun – ‫ – שובל‬is used of the red garments of the Anointed One in judgment [Isaiah 63:2].
55
Like snow, white glosses ‫[ רוח‬adjective, ms, sg] ‫[ גלתל‬preposition, ‫כ‬, prefixed to a noun, ms, sg].
The prepositional phrase – ‫ – גלתל‬refers simply to snow [KB², 2006r], used only here in Daniel. The
Hebrew cognate – ‫ – גלש‬is used in passages that suggest purity [Psalm 51:7; Isaiah 1:18]. The adjective –
‫[ רוח‬adjective, ms, sg] – may be glossed white, and is used only here in the Aramaic. The Hebrew cognate
– ‫ – רוח‬is used in Esther 8:15 to describe the appearance of royal robes.
9
The description becomes more physical with the hair of his head [was] like wool, pure. The
burden of the imagery seems to be carried by the personage’s hair being like wool, pure.56 The imagery
underlines the moral and spiritual qualifications for this personage to make these judgments. The person is
eminently qualified, since his purity amounts to righteousness.
7:9e In this clause, we are given a further description of the scene – His throne [was] aflame with
fire.
The language of aflame with fire seems to carry the weight of the imagery.57 Overall, it seems
best to read aflame with fire in terms of judgment, since both the Aramaic nouns are used in Daniel
referencing the judgment on the three young Hebrew lads. At the same time, the imagery of ‫רונ‬/fire or light
is really not all that far removed from Yahweh as ‫רנ‬/light in the Hebrew Bible, where the image indicates a
source of illumination.
It is the case that fire is often associated with the judgment and wrath of Yahweh. Such Hebrew
terms as ‫ ףרש‬,‫רעב‬, and ‫ טהל‬are all used in some contexts of Yahweh’s wrath and judgment. In this verse,
such terms are not used and it might be wise to read a nuanced form of judgment. That is, while it is the
case that both aflame and fire are used in Daniel in reference to the punishment/judgment of the three
Hebrews, neither term is explicitly used of the judgment of God. Moreover, the use of the Hebrew cognate
for fire implies more divine illumination than it does judgment. The nuance may be, therefore, judgment
that takes the form of illumination, especially in context with the books that will soon be opened. Men’s
deeds provide their own illumination – and judgment.
7:9f The clause carries forward the description of the throne – its wheels [were] a burning fire. The
3rd, masculine, singular suffix – its – has as its antecedent the 3rd, masculine, singular, noun – throne.
56
Like wool, pure glosses ‫[ אקנ‬adjective, ms, sg] ‫[ רמעכ‬preposition, ‫כ‬, prefixed to a noun, ms, sg].
As we have noted before, ‫ רמעכ‬is a simile that communicates some traits or characteristics. The Aramaic
noun is used only here in the Aramaic portion of the Old Testament. The Hebrew cognate – ‫ – רמצ‬is used
in Isaiah 1:18 in a promise from Yahweh to His fallen people. Their sins shall be white as snow // like
wool. Both snow and wool are symbols of what is naturally white [Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah,
48]. The point of the simile is the trait of inherent whiteness. This inherent whiteness is further clarified
with the adjective – ‫ – אקנ‬pure. The adjective appears only here in the Aramaic portion of the HB. The
Aramaic adjective may be glossed clean, pure [KB², 1933r]. The Akkadian cognate – nīqū – also points to
what is clean, pure [KB², 1933]. The adjective in neither Aramaic nor Hebrew is used in reference to a
divine personage. The Hebrew cognate – ‫ – יקנ‬describes what is clean or free from guilt, and is used in
parallel with ‫ קידצ‬in Exodus 23:7 [BDB, 667].
57
Aflame with fire renders ‫רונ־יד ןיביבש‬. The noun glossed aflame – ‫[ ןיביבש‬noun, ms, pl] – was
originally a strip or a tongue [KB², 1990], presumably of the appearance of a blazing fire with its tongue-
like flames ablaze. The noun in the Aramaic is simply glossed flame [KB², 1990r]. The only other use of
this noun in Daniel is in reference to blazing furnace from which the three Jews were delivered.
The noun glossed fire – ‫[ רונ‬noun, ms, sg] – may be glossed fire [KB², 1929r]. In Akkadian [nūru]
and Arabic [nūr], both mean light [KB², 1929]. The Hebrew cognate is ‫רנ‬, a noun that is glossed light [KB¹,
723]. The Aramaic noun appears 17 times in the Aramaic of Daniel, all but two [7:9, 10] in reference to
the punishment of the three Jews in the blazing fire. In 2 Samuel 22:29 [Psalm 18:29], David refers to
Yahweh as his ‫רנ‬/light; similarly, Job 29:3. Accordingly, there is precedent for using ‫רנ‬/light in reference
to God. The semantic field from which this noun is drawn includes words for light, lamp, lampstand [see
“Lamp” and “Light” in NIDOTTE].
10
The noun glossed wheels – ‫ – לגלג‬is used only here in Daniel and is simply translated wheel.58 The
mention of a wheeled chariot implies that the throne of God is the bearer of impending judgment.
7:10a The scene remains in heaven, now focusing on the presence of the ancient of days – a river of fire
was flowing and coming forth from before him.
We are told in the vision report that a river of fire was flowing. The operative terms are – a river
of fire.59 If we take the suggested translation of Bauer-Leander – a river-fire – then the image is
compressed to denote “the irresistibility of the divine energy.”60 This fourth beast will ultimately be given
over to a burning fire – ‫ – אשא תדקי‬and the visionary uses a different noun for fire – ‫אשא‬. The Hebrew
cognate of this noun is frequently used of the wrath and judgment of Yahweh.61
Indeed, the uncontainable nature of this judgment is pictured with the two verbs associated with
the movement of the river-fire – flowing and coming forth from him. Both verbs are participles.62 The
first participle implies a violent kind of rushing, while the second is used to pinpoint the source – issuing
forth from him,63 where the antecedent of him is the ancient of days.
7:10b the scene is still set before the throne of the ancient of days, concerning whom it is said –
thousands upon thousands were serving him.
The number is extraordinary for it’s being beyond measure – thousands upon thousands.64 The
reader is encouraged not to take this set of numbers literally. They are a figure of a retinue of servants
beyond counting.
58
‫[ לגלג‬noun, ms, sg, construct] is translated wheel [KB², 1845r]. The Hebrew cognate – ‫ – לגלג‬is
used of the judgment of God [Psalm 77:19; Isaiah 5:28 (through a nation-state); Ezekiel 10:2, 6, 13].
59
A river of fire glosses – ‫רונ־יד רהנ‬. The construction is a genitive, using a noun – ‫[ רהנ‬noun, ms,
sg] – followed by the genitive construction – ‫[ רונ־יד‬the genitive marker – ‫ – יד‬followed by the noun, ‫רונ‬
[noun, ms, sg]. The use of the genitive marker after a non-determined noun yields an appositional sense – a
fire river [ein Feuerstrom, Bauer-Leander § 90 a, c]. This is the sole appearance of this phrase in the
Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible, nor is anything quite like it in the Hebrew Bible.
60
Montgomery, 298.
61
Among the uses are Psalms 11:6; 18:9; 21:10; 50:3; 80:17; 83:15; Isaiah 9:18; 10:16; 30:30;
66:15; Ezekiel 1:4, 13, 27; 5:4; 22:31.
62
Flowing glosses ‫ דגנ‬and coming forth renders ‫קפנ‬. The participles probably function as a
narrative tense [Rosenthal § 177]. The first participle – ‫ – דגנ‬suggests movement of a fairly intense sort –
to flow, to gush [KB², 1926r]. The second participle is used to bring forth the origin of the river-fire – ‫– קפנ‬
to go out, to come forth, to issue from [KB², 1932r].
63
From before Him glosses ‫יהומדק־ןמ‬, an expression that probably carries spatial significance – out
of, from, from before (the presence of) [KB², 1967r].
64
‫ םיפלא ףלא‬may be glossed many thousands [KB², 1815r], also Holladay, 397r, and Bauer-
Leander § 89 i.
11
It is said that these were serving the ancient of days.65 It seems that ‫ שמש‬has a general sense of to
serve someone as master. Moreover, the stem of the verb implies passion in the manner of the service.
Goldingay’s remark that these are “God’s heavenly army, though their military role is not in focus here”
requires support.66
7:10c The clause continues the theme of those who are serving the ancient of days by reporting – a
thousand times ten thousand before him were standing. The verb glossed were standing – ‫ – ןומוקי‬is
like the preceding verb in terms of stem function, that is, there is eagerness attached to the action of the
verb. The sense of the verb is to stand in position prepared to serve.67
7:10d The clause moves the vision forward to the climax of the vision – [then] the court took its seat
and books were opened.
The scene is deliberate; first, the court took its seat.68 The noun glossed court points to a
tribunal or a judicial assembly. When the noun is used of the work of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ןיד‬
demonstrates an interest in maintaining justice for the oppressed [Psalms 9:5; 140:13; Proverbs 29:7]. The
noun will be used later in Daniel 7 in terms of removing the dominion of this fourth beast [7:26].
The verb that is used seems to carry the connotation of to take a seat (in order to sit in judgment).
In any event, the verb carries forward the judgment motif. The Hebrew cognate of this Aramaic verb is
used of Yahweh who sits on His throne in judgment, particularly in the Psalms [9:5; 55:10; 122:5].
We should be careful of over-reading this scene. The aspect of the perfect tense of the verb
implies an action that, from the standpoint of Daniel and his vision, was completed. The aspect of the verb
– took its seat – is an historical perfect, describing an event from the speaker’s viewpoint that was a simple
event in the past. Accordingly, to note, as John Walvoord does, that we have here “a vision of heaven at
65
Were serving glosses ‫[ הנושמשי‬Pa’el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl, with a 3rd, ms, sg, suffix]. This is the
only use of this verb in the Aramaic section of the HB. The term may be glossed – to serve. In Syriac, the
šammāšā is a servant; the Egyptian cognate – šmśy – also points to one who follows or serves. The LXX
translator uses λειτουργέω [to serve a master, or to perform religious service, to minister, LSJ, 1036].
Finally, the Pa’el stem of the verb suggests an intensity in performing the action of the verb [Bauer-Leander
§ 76 d].
66
Goldingay, 166.
67
Montgomery, 298.
68
The court took its seat renders ‫בתי אניד‬. The noun glossed court – ‫[ אניד‬noun, ms, sg,
determined] – is followed by the verb – ‫[ בתי‬Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms]. The noun translated court – ‫– אניד‬
implies a judicial assembly [KB², 1852r]; Holladay, 402r, opts for council of judges. The LXX translator
use κριτήριον [court of judgment, tribunal (LSJ, 997)]. The Hebrew cognate – ‫ – ןיד‬is used of Yahweh as
He judges righteously // maintaining a just cause [Psalm 9:5; 140:13; Proverbs 29:7]; the noun is also used
of Yahweh as He humbles those who are proud [Daniel 4:34]; the ancient of days passes judgment in favor
of the saints of the Highest One [Daniel 7:22]; the noun is used in terms of the removal of dominion from
the one who speaks boastfully in Daniel 7 [Daniel 7:26].
The verb glossed took its seat – ‫[ בתי‬Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms] – signifies to be seated, to take one’s
place [KB², 1895r]; an Akkadian text, dealing with king Hammurabi uses the Akkadian cognate – dayyānī
– in terms of to sit in judgment [KB², 1895]. The Hebrew cognate – ‫ – בשי‬is used of Yahweh who sits on
His throne in judgment [Psalms 9:5; 55:10; 122:5; Isaiah 16:5]. The aspect of the perfect should be noted.
In Aramaic the perfect simply posits completed action [Rosenthal § 98]; in this case, the perfect is used as a
historical perfect or a simple narrative tense in simply describing what for the speaker was a simple past
event [Bauer-Leander § 79 h-i].
12
the time of final judgment on the nations” is simply a misread of the aspect of the verb.69 What we have
here is a lifting of the veil whereby we are permitted to watch while God oversees His universe. Such
scenes are found elsewhere in the Old Testament [2 Kings 22:15-20; Job 1-2; Isaiah 6]. As we shall see
directly, we are not dealing with the final judgment and end of human history in Daniel 7, since kingdoms
with reduced dominion continue to exist [Daniel 7:12b].
Rather, the good news in this passage is that Yahweh is in charge of His world on a day-by-day
basis. Surely, this would have encouraged the readers of Daniel. Note, for example how Daniel arranges
the boasting of the small horn – Daniel 7:8 and 7:11. In the very midst of this boasting, the court of heaven
takes note and takes action. As John Goldingay writes, “Even while Antiochus is mouthing his arrogance
(vv 8, 11 either side of 9-10) a court is being calmly set up, and a judge is serenely taking his seat.” 70 God
is neither absent, nor asleep, nor uninvolved in dealing with those nations that set themselves in opposition
to Him.
Finally, we are told that books were opened. The noun translated books – ‫ – ןירפס‬may be read as
a record book.71 In this line, the content of the books is not made clear. Given the setting of 7:9-10
between the boisterous and boastful goings on of the small horn, one would surmise that the content of the
books includes the deeds for which this small horn will suffer judgment [7:11], along with the others who
were more or less like him [7:12].
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, we do find evidence of Yahweh keeping a record of the deeds of
mankind. In Exodus 32:32-33, sin is a just cause for erasure from the record of Yahweh. Psalm 69:29
mentions the book of life in parallel with in the next line the record of the righteous. In Isaiah 4:3, the
prophet mentions that everyone who is recorded for life is identical with the holy ones. In Daniel 12:1,
those who are written in the book have conducted themselves with exemplary faithfulness during times of
persecution, including leading many to righteousness. Finally, in Malachi 3:16, the prophet identifies those
who are written in the book as those who fear Yahweh and esteem His name. On the whole, then, the
books are a record of deeds, including – sin, acts developing from righteousness, acts of holiness,
faithfulness, fearing Yahweh and esteeming His name.
The kinds of deeds for which the small horn is judged include those mentioned in 7:8, that is, the
insolent or blasphemous speech that characterized this leader’s defiance of Yahweh. The kinds of deeds for
with the fourth beast is slain include its ruthless use of power [7:7c], its drive for utter destruction of other
nations less powerful [7:7d], and its callous lack of concern for the nations it subjugates [7:7d]. The three
initial beasts remain on the scene, 7:12b, but with reduced power. Their deeds, for which they suffer the
loss of international influence, include the rapacity, strength, and predatory nature of the lion-eagle; the
voracious appetite for more political conquest of the bear; and the intensification of predatory power in the
leopard.
69
Walvoord, 163.
70
Goldingay, 189.
71
‫ ןירפס‬is glossed book, record book [KB², 1939r]; the Arabic cognate – sifr – simply points to a
book; the Akkadian cognate – šipru – indicates a book, mission, message; the Late Babylonian cognate –
sipru – simply points to a document. The Old Testament does refer to Yahweh as One who records the
deeds of man in a book [Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm 69:29; Isaiah 4:3; Daniel 12:1; Malachi 3:16]. The
Exodus 32 passage implies that sin is just cause for removal from the Book that Yahweh has written. In this
context, the book would appear to be a record of those who had been, at one time, loyal to Yahweh. The
Psalm 69 text uses the phrase book of life in parallel with the record of the righteous. The Isaiah 4:3
passage mentions that everyone who is recorded for life is described as holy. In the Daniel 12:1 passage,
the writer promises that those who have lived through persecution with insight, shining like lights, and
leading many to righteousness, are those who are written in the book. Finally, the Malachi 3:16 passage
tells us that those who are written in the book are those who [1] fear Yahweh and [2] esteem His name.
13
7:11a With 7:11-12, the vision report turns to the fate of the horn, and the other beasts. The section, 7:2-
14, is comprised of [1] the emergence of these beasts [7:2-8]; [2] the turning point for them – judgment
[7:9-10]; [3] the reversal of fortunes for all of them [7:11-12]; and [4] dominion granted to one like a son of
man [7:13-14].
The account of the reversal of fortunes for them begins with Thereupon, I kept on watching.
The adverb – thereupon – tells us that the execution of the judgment detailed in 7:9-10 is to be
immediately unfolded in human history.72 In other words, there is continuity of setting between the
judgment scene in 7:9-10 and the execution of the judgment in 7:11-12.
Once more, the verbal aspect of kept on watching should be duly noted.73 The construction that
is used points to a past action from the standpoint of the reporter of the vision. In order to capture the
continuity of setting with the previous line signaled by the adverb, we gloss I kept on watching.
7:11b This sentence offers the reason for the dire judgment on the beast in 7:11c. The reason74 offered
for the destruction of the beast in 7:11c is the sound of the boastful words that the horn was speaking.
The sense of the boastful words takes the reader back to Daniel 7:8. We noted in the Daniel 7
passage that the pronouncements of this small horn were indeed impressive. The use of the participle –
speaking – signaled a characteristic of this personage that was ongoing with him. The sense of the
adjective – great boasts – indicated bragging speech, boastful speech, or possibly blasphemous speech.
Bauer-Leander opts for insolent speech, as does Holladay.75 Rosenthal simply translates big words.76 The
sense of the adjective glossed here simply posits the boastful or possibly the insolent speech of this small
horn. It should be noted that in 7:25, the same verb, used here as a participle, is used as a finite verb –
‫ללמ‬/speak – of the blasphemous speech of this small horn. While the reader may simply understand here a
man who makes impressive pronouncements, ultimately, his speech will take on a more draconian hue. It
would be difficult, in this context, not to understand some reference to the blasphemous speech of this
small horn.
7:11c The sentence again implies continuity of setting and consequence with the preceding sentence – as
a consequence of the boastful words … the beast was slain.
72
Thereupon glosses the Aramaic adverb ‫ןידאב‬, with a preposition, ‫ב‬, prefixed. The adverb may be
glossed then [KB², 1807r], Rosenthal § 89, Bauer-Leander § 68 a – immediately.
73
I kept on watching glosses ‫תיוה הזח‬. The construction front loads a participle – ‫[ הזח‬Pe’al,
participle, ms, sg] – followed by a finite verb – ‫[ תיוה‬Pe’al, perfect, 1st, cs]. The construction may be used
to signal a report of some past action, from the standpoint of the reporter [KB², 1859r; Bauer-Leander § 81
p].
74
The sentence opens with a marker of the reason for the action taken in the next clause, 7:11c,
that is – ‫ – לק־ןמ‬indicates either as a consequence of or because of [KB², 1919r; Bauer-Leander § 91 h;
Rosenthal § 80; BDB, 1101r].
75
See Bauer-Leander § 94 d, and Holladay, 420; BDB, 1112r, prefers imposing.
76
Rosenthal § 44.
14
That the beast was slain77 implies that the beast was acted upon by some unidentified agency.
The passive use of the stem of the verb implies that a force or forces outside the beast’s control killed him.
This is not the first time in the book of Daniel we have noted the passive stem signaling some level of
Divine activity, and so it is here. For, the context, 7:9-10, places us squarely within the sphere of the divine
judgment of men for their deeds. Professor D. S. Russell nicely summarizes the point, “The mighty tyrant
who mocks and blasphemes Almighty God and who crushes and kills God’s people will himself be
consumed.”78
The reader might well wonder at the apparent equation between the boastful words of the horn in
7:11b and then the outcome – the beast was slain. The visionary would seem to be making the point that
the entire regime – the fourth beast [Daniel 7:7] from which the small horn emerged [Daniel 7:8] – was
utterly consumed. This is Slotki’s take on the reference to the beast, writing that the beast refers to “the
empire or religious group which it represents, not the individuals who composed it.” 79
7:11d This sentence adds detail to the death of the fourth beast – its body was destroyed and given up
to a burning fire.
The visionary observes that its body was destroyed.80 The striking matter about this verb is that
its stem is the passive of the causative of the idea of the verbal root. As we have been noting, an
unidentified agency is sovereign over the lives of these beasts, including this fourth one. As Joyce Baldwin
remarks, “The dramatic turn of events proves beyond doubt the sovereignty of the heavenly judge.”81
The visionary goes on the report that the body of the fourth beast was given up to a burning
fire.82 As we have already observed in this passage, the passive nuance of the verbal stem is once more
77
Until the beast was slain glosses ‫אתויח תליטק יד דע‬. The temporal marker – ‫ – יד דע‬may be
glossed, when used with the imperfect, until [KB², 1943r; Bauer-Leander § 70 v; Rosenthal § 86]. The
object of the verb – ‫[ אתויח‬noun, fm, sg, determined] – is made definite by the article, implying a back
reference to the fourth beast [7:7-8]. For the linguistic implications of the word – beast – see the notes on
7:2. The action taken upon this beast is that he was slain – ‫[ תליטק‬Pe’il, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg] – implies that
the beast was acted upon since the stem may be read as a passive [Bauer-Leander § 32 e´]. The agent is not
explicitly stated, but the immediate context, 7:9-10, suggests a Divine agency. The aspect of the perfect is
probably again of the completed action variety, whereby the speaker simply posits the action of killing as a
fact. The verb itself – ‫ – תליטק‬may be glossed to kill [KB², 1969r]; to be slain [BDB, 1111r].
78
Russell, Daniel, 121.
79
Slotki, 59. When a nation gives rise to a beast, shouldn’t the nation be held accountable?
80
Its body was destroyed glosses ‫המשג דבוהו‬. The introductory waw may be of the explanatory
variety [Bauer-Leander § 70 r]. The verb – ‫[ דבוה‬Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms] – uses a stem that is passive and
causative [Bauer-Leander § 36 r-w], and is thus translated to be destroyed [KB², 1806r; also BDB, 1078r].
The reference to its body – ‫[ המשג‬noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, fs, suffix] – signals the body,
self [BDB, 1086], the body [KB², 1847r; Holladay, 401r]. This noun is used in the Aramaic of the Hebrew
Bible only in Daniel. The sense of the noun does seem to be body/self in 3:28, the blazing furnace episode;
otherwise, it seems to refer to the physical body.
81
Baldwin, 142.
82
Given up to a burning fire glosses ‫אשא תדקיל תביהיו‬. The verb is front loaded in the sentence,
with a prefixed waw. Once more, this waw may be the explanatory waw, signaling yet a further specifying
factor in the judgment/death of this fourth beast [see Bauer-Leander § 71 r]. The verb – ‫[ תביהי‬Pe’il,
perfect, 3rd, fs] – uses a stem that signals the passive nuance we have seen before [Bauer-Leander § 32 b´-g
´]. Accordingly, the verb may be glossed as a passive, to be given [KB², 1889r]; when followed by the
15
used. An agent from without is having his way with this fourth beast. This passive verb is translated to be
given over. The same verb is used in Daniel 2:21 of Yahweh who removes kings at the time He chooses.
Moreover, this verb is used on two other occasions in a similar way; that is, in 5:28, the kingdom of
Belshazzar is given over to the Medes and the Persians. Then, in the next verse in our passage, 7:12, the
dominion of the remaining three beasts is removed. The use of the verb seems to represent the sovereignty
of the Lord of history in these contexts. The upshot is that Daniel 7:11d may be seen as commentary on
Daniel 2:21. This point is made more clearly in the next clause.
The reference to a burning fire has been interpreted in terms of the burning fire of eternal
damnation in hell.83 The reader should initially attend to the sense of the words that the visionary uses.84
To begin with, the genitive construction may be read a burning by/with fire. Moreover, the misplaced
hint into the meaning that attends the reading of the phrase with a definite article – the burning fire –
unnecessarily tips the scales in the direction of reading a reference to the eternal burning in hell. Finally,
the use of ‫אשא‬/fire in the poets and the prophets is a general figure for the destructive wrath of God. When
the idea of ‫אשא‬/fire as a figure for the destructive wrath of God is added to the insight from the previous
clause – the use of ‫תביהי‬/to give over – of Yahweh’s removal of king when He chooses, then the former
becomes the means for the latter. That is, a burning with/by fire – the destructive wrath of God – is the
means by which Yahweh removes a political leader when Yahweh is finished with that leader. As noted
above, Daniel 7:11d may be read as living commentary on Daniel 2:21.
7:12a With this verse, the reader is shown that the context is not about the end of human history, since
the remaining three beasts have their dominion reduced but their realms continue to function. The line
reads – as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed.
The reference to as for the rest of the beasts would seem to be a back reference to the three
beasts mentioned earlier in the chapter [7:3-6]. Many readers of this clause refer to the earlier portion of
Daniel, 7:4-6, and attempt to make historical connections with Babylon, Media, and Persia – the first three
beasts – and Greece – the fourth. 85 However, as we noted in our discussion of 7:4-6, two different but
plausible reconstructions of the identities of these beasts may be made. Historical identifications may not
really be the point that Daniel is trying to make. The issue may be more theological.
The visionary continues by reporting that their dominion was removed.86 The noun glossed
dominion – ‫ – ןוהנטלש‬implies dominion, might, power, or even empire. This concept of ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion
preposition, ‫ל‬, the gloss may be to be given over to [BDB, 1095r]. The verb is used in Daniel 2:21 of
Yahweh who removes kings; in Daniel 5:28, the verb is used in reference to the kingdom of Belshazzar that
was given over to the Medes and the Persians by Yahweh; in Daniel 7:12, the verb is used to affirm that the
dominion of the remaining three beasts is taken away/removed.
83
See Montgomery, 301, for an overview; Walvoord, 165.
84
A burning fire glosses the genitive construction – ‫אשא תדקי‬. The lead noun – ‫[ תדקי‬noun, fm, sg,
construct] – is followed by ‫[ אשא‬noun, fm, sg]. It may be best to read the genitive along the lines of the
subjective genitive, where the genitive term – ‫ – אשא‬does the action described by the lead noun – ‫תדקי‬. The
sense of the subjective genitive can have a possessive or qualitative structure, yielding burning by fire
[IBHS, 9.5.1b; also RSV]. The lead noun – ‫ – תדקי‬is used only here in the Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible.
The genitive noun – ‫ – אשא‬does not have a definite article; hence translations that have the burning fire
[NASB, NIV, NKJV, KJV] need to justify the presence in the translation of what is not in the text.
‫אשא‬/fire is a common metaphor of the destructive wrath of Yahweh [Psalm 11:6; 18:9; 21:10; 80:17; Isaiah
9:18; 29:6; 30:33 among others]. Cross-references in many English translations that link this line in Daniel
7:11 with Revelation 19:20 and 20:10 really do not work. It is better to view Revelation 19:20 with Isaiah
30:33, since both contain the mention of brimstone. The same may be said of the Revelation 20:10, since
Isaiah 30:33, as well as Psalm 11:6 and Ezekiel 38:22, all mention ‫אשא‬/fire along with brimstone.
85
See Russell, Daniel, 121; Goldingay, 166.
16
figures large in the book of Daniel. To begin with, ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion is within the same semantic field as
the noun used in Daniel 2:21, which notes that Yahweh removes [same verb as 7:12a; note the passive
nuance of the verb] kings. The implication for 7:12a is that Yahweh removes the dominion of these three
beasts/kingdoms, making 7:12a a comment on 2:21.
Moreover, ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion is that which Nebuchadnezzar affirms both pagan and pious together
will acknowledge of Yahweh [4:3]. In Daniel 6:27, Darius avers that the ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion of Yahweh is
both beyond destruction and eternal. Finally, the last uses of ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion in the book of Daniel come
in Daniel 7. In 7:12a, ‫ ןוהנטלש‬is taken from these beasts/kingdoms; will be turned over to one like a son of
man [7:14a]; and ultimately will be shared with the saints of the Most High One [7:27a]. As noted above,
the point that the visionary makes is surely theological.
To begin with, Daniel 7:12a is a comment on the truth earlier affirmed in 2:21. That is, Yahweh is
the sovereign Lord of history and 7:12 is proof positive of that divine sovereignty. Moreover,
‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion, in the sense of power, might, and rule, belongs to Yahweh alone. He places it where He
wants it and removes it when He chooses to confiscate it. Finally, it would appear that Daniel 7 affirms a
place for ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion that ultimately leads to and concludes with one like a son of man and the saints
of the Most High. Whatever else this may imply, it seems virtually certain that ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion is not
ultimately reserved for the political classes of society. To be sure, Daniel has already noted that a day
would come, in the time of those kings, when the God of heaven would establish a kingdom that would
never be destroyed [2:44]. So, He shall! And, so He has!
7:12b This sentence is also an affirmation of the sovereignty of Yahweh over human, political, history.
The sentence is an assertive, making a truth claim that a lengthening of life was given to them for a time
and a season.
A lengthening of life means pretty much what it implies.87 Prolonging their time on earth, though
reduced in international power, these beasts/kingdoms are destined to exist for an appointed amount of
time. This leads to the observation, already noted, that neither the ancient of days passage nor the son of
man passage signal the end of human history. We are not, with these passages, in the realm of the lasts
days of all human life.
This lengthening of life was given to them, again using language that signals an agent behind the
giving.88
86
Their dominion was removed translates ‫ןוהנטלש וידעה‬. The verb in the line – ‫[ וידעה‬Haph’el,
perfect, 3rd, ms, pl] – may be glossed in the Haph’el to take away, to remove [KB², 1944r]. The passive
nuance of the Haph’el stem implies an agent, surely Yahweh. It is noteworthy that this verb is also used in
Daniel 2:21 in the same stem to affirm that Yahweh chooses the time to remove kingdoms. The noun in the
7:12a – ‫[ ןוהנטלש‬noun, ms, sg, construct with a 3rd, ms, pl, suffix] – may be glossed dominion, might,
power, empire [KB², 1995r]. While this noun is not the direct object of ‫הדע‬/remove in 2:21, ‫ ןוהנטלש‬is
found within the same semantic field as the noun that is used – ‫ןיכלמ‬/kings [“Kingship, dominion, kingdom,
rule, supervision,” in NIDOTTE]. The notion of ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion plays a key role in the theology of
Daniel. As noted in Daniel 4:3, Nebuchadnezzar, possibly with Daniel’s help, acknowledges that pagan
and pious together will acknowledge the ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion of Yahweh. In Daniel 6, Darius acknowledges
that the ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion of Yahweh is both beyond destruction and eternal [6:27]. Finally, as we shall
soon see, this ‫ןוהנטלש‬/dominion is taken from these beasts/kingdoms [7:12a], will be turned over to one like
a son of man [7:14a], and be given to the saints of the Highest One [7:27a].
87
A lengthening of life uses a noun followed by a prepositional phrase. The lead noun – ‫הכרא‬
[noun, fm, sg] – may be glossed length of time, prolongation [KB², 1825r]; also BDB, 1022r, and
Holladay, 398r. The prepositional phrase – ‫ – ןייחב‬uses a noun that simply points to life [KB², 1874r].
88
Was given to them glosses ‫ןוהל תביהי‬. The line is a verb followed by a prepositional phrase. The
verb – ‫[ תביהי‬Pe’il, perfect, 3rd, fs] – may be glossed in a passive sense, to be given [KB², 1889r]. For the
passive nuance of this verbal stem, see Bauer-Leander § 32 b´-g´.
17
The temporal marker – for a time and a season – would seem to signal a future that is ultimately
limited. The words are the same as we have in Daniel 2:21, where it is said that Yahweh changes times and
seasons. Daniel 2:21 is surely in the background, as the verse has been elsewhere in 7:12.
As we noted at the time, the times and epochs of Daniel 2:21 imply changing times and epochs.89
The first noun – ‫ – אינדע‬may be glossed a fixed time, or a period of time,90 a specifically fixed time. The
first noun indicates a set time. The sense of the term is that time, including the events within time, are
shaped by God. In the next line, this notion will be specified in terms of the rise and fall of politicians and
world leaders. For now, the author simply tells us that these events within time are at the pleasure of God.
The second noun in 2:21 - epochs - shares the basic sense of the previous term. The ‫ ןמז‬are the
specified times of human history that include events that are in the hands of God. One of the more popular
expressions of this idea is the opening of Ecclesiastes 3:1. The author writes – ‫ – ןמז לכל‬For everything - a
time. Whatever else one wants to affirm about Qoheleth’s and Daniel’s use of times and epochs, one thing
is very clear - these are God’s times, not ours.91 Beyond that, the use of the terms times and epochs, or
simply a time in Ecclesiastes, indicates that every type of event has a time in which it is appropriate.92 In
terms of the times and epochs in Daniel 2:21a with the attendant deposing kings and appointing kings
[2:21b], what Robert Gordis says of Ecclesiastes 3:1 also applies here, “Koheleth begins with noting an
accepted datum of experience, that all actions have their proper time [emphasis mine].”93
The net effect is a theological point stemming from Daniel 2:21. Namely, Yahweh grants an
extension of life for a set period of time in order to bring about, in due season, events that are right and
timely for Yahweh’s purposes. These purposes have already been hinted at in the passing of dominion
from the kingdom of man to the kingdom of the one like a son of man.
7:13a With this sentence, the visionary report returns to a divine personage – one like a son of man. The
opening sentence implies a continuity of setting as we saw with similar language in 7:11a,c – So, I
continued looking in my visions of the night.
7:13b This sentence introduces a new player in the vision – then, behold: with the clouds of the
heavens, [one] like a son of man was coming. The line contains an insight into his origin and his person.
The origin of this personage is signaled by – with the clouds of the heavens. This is the only
time the noun clouds – ‫ – ןנע‬is found in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible.94 The cloud in the
89
Times and epochs glosses ‫[ אינדע‬noun, ms, pl, determined] ‫[ אינמז‬noun, ms, pl, determined]. The
first noun – ‫ – אינדע‬is an expression of time and may be glossed time [KB², 1944r]; BDB, 1105r, suggests
that perhaps this noun is an Assyrian cognate that points to a fixed, appointed, or determined time. If this
last nuance is admitted, then the noun points to a determined time or a fixed time, including events within
time, determined by God. The larger point is: time does not simply happen; rather, time is an instrument of
God.
90
KB², 1866r; Holladay, 404r; see also BDB, 1091r, who sees this along the same lines.
91
John D. W. Watts, Word Biblical Commentary, ed., vol. 23a, Ecclesiastes by Roland Murphy
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 39.
92
On this point, see Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 200.
93
Robert Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 228.
94
There is a Hebrew cognate – ‫ – ןנע‬that does have some bearing on the Aramaic cognate as used
in this context. That is, ‫ןנע‬/cloud is used as a metaphor of Yahweh’s presence and nearness. Occasionally,
18
Hebrew Bible is a metaphor of Yahweh’s nearness and His presence. Whatever else is implied here, the
divine origin of this ‫ שנא רבכ‬seems obvious with this imagery.
The key claim in this sentence concerns [one] like a son of man. The Aramaic uses – ‫שנא רבכ‬.95
To begin with, the reader should note that we are once again in the realm of simile. The simile, as we have
noted before, is a kind of comparison. The simile says, in effect, “A is somehow like B.”96 Accordingly,
what Daniel saw was somehow like a son of man.
The English collocation – son of man – comes in three basic forms in the Old Testament. The
collocation we have here – ‫ – שנא רב‬may be glossed a man, or one of human kind. This collocation – ‫שנא‬
‫ – רב‬is used in the plural in Daniel 2:38 in a reference to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar that extends wherever
the ‫ שנא רב‬dwell. The collocation is also used in the plural in Daniel 5:21, when Nebuchadnezzar is driven
away from ‫שנא רב‬, mankind. The upshot is that in its appearances in Daniel, ‫ שנא רב‬has a human referent.
this nearness is for purposes of divine leadership [Exodus 13:21-22], divine communication [Exodus 19:9],
displaying the glory of the Lord [Numbers 17:7], divine judgment [Deuteronomy 31:15], His presence in
righteousness and justice/judgment [Psalm 97:2; Ezekiel 30:3 (a time of doom for all nations)].
95
This exact collocation – ‫ – שנא רבכ‬occurs only here in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible.
The terms are used in the plural in Daniel 2:38 [of Nebuchadnezzar whose rule extends over wherever the
sons of men dwell] and in 5:21 [of Nebuchadnezzar, whose judgment included being driven away from the
sons of men or simply mankind]. Accordingly, when used elsewhere in Daniel, the phrase suggests
humanity. Moreover, when the lead noun – ‫ – רב‬is used with another noun within a range of two lexemes,
we get the following: [1] ‫( אתולג ינב‬the sons of the exile), 2:25; 5:13; 6:14; [2] ‫( ןיהלא־רבל‬a son of a god),
3:25; [3] ‫( ןיתרתו ןיתש ןינש רבכ‬a son of sixty two years), 6:1. Once we turn from the Aramaic of Daniel to
collocations in the Hebrew Bible, restricting ourselves to the Psalter and the Prophets, we get additional
results. The collocation – ‫( שיא ינב‬son of man) – is used in Psalm 4:3 and Lamentations 3:33 in reference to
humanity. The collocation – ‫( םדא ינב‬son of man) – is far more prevalent. ‫ םדא ינב‬is used in the sense of a
human being, humanity in Psalm 8:5 [note the overtones of the glory of man and the dominion of man];
11:4; 12:1, 8; 14:2; 20:10; 31:19; 33:13; 36:7; 45:2; 53:2; 57:4; 58:1; 66:5; 89:47; 50:3; 107:8, 15, 21, 31;
115:16; 145:12; 146:3. The collocation - ‫ – םדא ינב‬is also found in Isaiah in references to humanity; see
Isaiah 57:12; 52:14; 56:2. The same may be said for the use of ‫ םדא ינב‬in Jeremiah 32:19; 49:18, 33; 50:40;
51:43. The use of ‫ םדא ינב‬in Ezekiel is almost uniformly a designation for the prophet himself; Yahweh
addresses him as ‫םדא ינב‬/son of man throughout the book; note 2:1, 3, 6; 3:1, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1, 16; 5:1;
6:2; 7:2; 8:5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17; 11:2, 4, 15; 12:2, 3, 9, 18, 22, 27; 13:2, 17; 14:3, 13; 15:2; 16:2; 17:2; 20:3, 4,
27; 21:2, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24, 33; 22:2, 18, 24; 23:2, 36; 24:2, 16, 25; 25:2; 26:2; 27:2; 28:2, 12, 21; 29:2,
18; 30:2, 21; 31:2; 32:2, 18; 33:2, 7, 10, 12, 24, 30; 34:2; 35:2; 36:1, 17; 37:3, 9, 11, 16; 38:2, 14; 39:1, 17;
40:4; 43:7, 10, 18; 44:5, 6. The collocation, ‫םדא ינב‬, is also used in Daniel 8:17 in reference to humanity;
the same may be said for ‫ םדא ינב‬in Joel 1:12; Micah 5:6. Finally, ‫ םדא ינב‬is used in the sense of some sort
of heavenly being in Psalm 80:17 [the man at Your right hand; upon the son of man whom You made
strong for Yourself] and in Daniel 10:16, of the heavenly personages who spoke to him.
Moreover, the Aramaic phrase uses a preposition – ‫ – כ‬like, once more suggesting a simile that
stresses some characteristic or trait. The characteristic must surely be the personage’s humanity. Indeed,
the collocation – ‫ – שנא רב‬is used simply to refer to a man [KB², 1839r; Holladay, 400r]; BDB, 1085r, opts
for one of human kind. In Ezra 6:16, the collocation becomes ‫לארשי־נב‬, shorthand for Israelites; in Daniel
2:25, the phrase is – ‫ – אתולג ינב‬sons of the exile or simply exiles [also 5:13; 6:13]; finally, the only
collocation that uses the Aramaism – ‫ – רב‬is Daniel 3:25, where Nebuchadnezzar peers into the blazing
furnace and sees ‫ןיהלא־רב‬, a son of a god.
Daniel uses a cognate expression – ‫םדא־נב‬/son of man – in 8:17 in the sense of human being. The
use of the same expression in 10:16 refers to a heavenly being in human form. The Hebrew Bible makes
generous use of ‫םדא־נב‬/son of man as code for a member of the human race [Psalm 8:5-6; 14:2; 33:13;
45:2(3) (Messianic); 66:5; 80:18 (possibly Messianic?); Isaiah 52:14 (of the Messiah – Is this even
human?); Ezekiel 2:1 (used of Ezekiel – human being)].
19
When we look for other collocations that use the lead noun ‫רב‬/son with some other term, we get
both human and divine references. Daniel mentions ‫( אתולג ינב‬the sons of the exile) and ‫ןיתרתו ןיתש ןינש רבכ‬
(a son of sixty two years), both relate to some human orientation. The other use of ‫רב‬/son is in terms of the
‫( ןיהלא־רבל‬a son of a god) Nebuchadnezzar saw in the blazing furnace alongside the three Jews. These
observations lead to the conclusion that ‫רב‬/son may be used in reference to a human or divine being.
The second form in which son of man comes in the Old Testament is ‫שיא ינב‬. This collocation is
infrequent in the Old Testament and is used in human terms.97
The third way the Hebrew Bible represents son of man is ‫םדא ינב‬. The collocation appears in the
Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, and Micah. In these books, ‫ םדא ינב‬is used of humanity,
mankind, or some general reference to a human being. It is the case that ‫ םדא ינב‬also is used to point to
some kind of divine or heavenly personage in Psalm 80:17 and Daniel 10:16. However, the preponderance
of uses of ‫ םדא ינב‬is in human terms.
It may be well to reflect for a moment on what we already have before delving more deeply into
this use of like a son of man. To begin with, the reader should note the simile here. That is, chapter 7 of
Daniel has made use of rich similes, but this one is different. Specifically, the similes that have been used
describe kingdoms that are rapacious, violent, and powerful. We have had a kingdom like a lion-eagle; we
have had a kingdom like a bear, and we have had a kingdom like a leopard. In other words, these
kingdoms are beasts. In the current passage, a dominion, a royal honor, and a kingdom will be given to one
like a human being. The net effect is that the reader may intuit a contrast in leadership and style with this
more humane leader of the kingdom he will be given. But, what more needs to be said here in regard to
this one like a son of man?
Again, the reader finds himself/herself in the realm of identifications. There have been several
proposals.98 Among the more prevalent have been these: [1] the son of man is a collective reference to the
saints of the Most High (7:26-28); [2] the son of man is a Messianic designation; and [3] the son of man
references the saints of the Most High, which are, in reality, angelic beings. One final proposal does
deserve attention; that is, the writer of Daniel, as he has in previous similes, does not really intend a specific
identification to be made. Rather, “Chapter 7 invites us to focus on the humanlike figure’s role rather than
his identity.”99
The matter of identification must take into account the use of ‫שנא רב‬/son of man in the New
Testament.100
Mark 13.101 The first use in the text of Mark, 13:26, is within the wider context of chapter 13 as a
whole. More narrowly, Mark 13:26 is part of the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13:3-37. This discourse is
triggered by the observation, by one of His disciples, concerning the beauty and splendor of the Temple
[13:1]. To this observation, Jesus replies that the Temple will be destroyed [13:2]. This remark moves
96
Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1992), 166.
97
Psalm 4:3; Lamentations 3:33.
98
See Young, 155-56; Goldingay, 169-72; Montgomery, 317-24; and Baldwin, 148-54.
99
Goldingay, 172.
100
The phrase is quoted in Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; and Luke 21:27; it is
alluded to in Revelation 1:13; 14:14. The LXX has ώς υιὸς άνθρώπου.
101
For purposes of understanding how the New Testament viewed the Daniel passage, we simply
take the Marcan account as basic. No attempt is made to reconcile the Synoptics with one another.
20
Peter, James, John and Andrew to ask Jesus in 13:4 – Tell us, when these things will be and what is the sign
when all these things are about to be completed?
Obviously, the question seeks some sign, some event that signals the destruction of the Temple.
But, the question from these four seems to imply more than a signal for the destruction of the Temple. That
is, the first use of these things – ταûτα – must back reference Jesus’ remark about the destruction of the
Temple. However, the second use, all these things – ταûτα πάντα – would seem to imply that these four
were assuming that the destruction of the Temple would not be an isolated event. This second use of ταûτα
πάντα implies that the questioners saw the destruction of the Temple as “part of a complex of events
leading to the End.”102 Accordingly, these four ask for a definitive sign by which they may know that the
destruction of the Temple signals the End. To be sure, probing for a sign of the End is how Jesus Himself
takes their question. That is, in 13:7 and 13:13, Jesus specifically refers to the End – τò τέλος103 in
fashioning His responses. We may assume that His use of τò τέλος means the time between His death and
resurrection to the end of human history.
Having asked for the sign – τò σημεîον – Jesus proceeds in the remainder of the discourse to give
them three responses with a concluding remark to the effect that no one really knows when the End will be.
The first response, Mark 13:5-13 and 13:14-23, concerns earthly events between the Resurrection and the
End. The second response, Mark 13:24-27, concerns the cosmic event that proclaims the End. Finally, the
third response, Mark 13:28-31 and 13:32-37, is an exhortation concerning how to behave until the End,
emphasizing vigilance.
The first response concerns events on earth, 13:5-23. It should be noted that the entire section –
13:5-23 – is bracketed by the same concern – the deception of many by false Christs with an attendant
warning to beware.104 This repetition of concern through repeating key terms is a way of delimiting the
boundaries of the entire unit, 13:5-23. We take it, then, that Mark 13:5-23 describes typical events in the
Christian experience of life from the Incarnation to the End of time.
Typical of the time between the Incarnation of Christ and the End will be the emergence of false
Messiahs [13:5-6, 21-23], international hostilities [13:7-8a], natural disaster [13:8b], all of which are said
by Jesus to be only the beginning of great suffering [13:8c].105 More to the point, in regards to the kind of
102
C. F. D. Moule, The Cambridge Greek Commentary, vol. 2, The Gospel according to Saint
Mark, by C. E. B. Cranfield (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 393.
103
For the sense of τò τέλος as the end of the cosmic drama, see Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt and
Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
revised by Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 811;;
moreover as Louw & Nida point out, τò τέλος is part of a semantic domain of words for time, τò τέλος
indicating “a point of time marking the end of a duration,” [Johannes P. Louw, Eugene A. Nida, Rondal B.
Smith, and Karen Munson, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, vol.
1 (New York; United Bible Societies, 1989), 638].
104
The repetition of key terms is suggestive. That is, 13:5 has an exhortation to beware or see to it
[βλέπετε] that no one deceives you [πλανάω] over the matter of a false Christ, 13:6. At the other end of the
section, false Christs and false prophets will come on the scene, 13:22, in order to deceive [άποπλανάω];
accordingly, the disciples are exhorted to beware [βλέπετε]. This repetition of language is reminiscent of
the Hebrew technique of the envelope figure. This technique, which may use the repetition of key words,
opens and then closes a unit, in effect delimiting the pericope [see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 284].
105
The expression used here – άρχὴ ώδίων ταûτα – uses a noun, ώδίων, which is a figure of
intense suffering and pain [Louw & Nida, 24. 87]. The fact that this intense suffering is but the beginning
implies that over the course of time from the Incarnation to the End, the level of intense suffering will
increase over time.
21
suffering that will impact the disciples, there is suffering for the gospel [13:9-11] and suffering familial
rejection for the Gospel [13:12-13].
Of particular note is the report in 13:14-20. Jesus refers to some horrible catastrophe that
defiles.106 The reference comes from Daniel 12:11. The context of Daniel 12:11-13 should be noted:
12:11a Now, from the time that the daily offering is abolished,
12:11b and the abomination that desolates is imposed is 1290 days.
12:12 Blessed is he who is patient and reaches to 1335 days.
12:13a So you, go to the end;
12:13b then, you will remain settled and appear for your destiny to the end of the age.
The fact that Jesus uses the citation of Daniel from the last verses in the book of Daniel needs to
be appreciated. It is clear that the abomination that desolates is set in a context of ongoing endurance
[12:12-13]. Accordingly, the context from which Jesus lifts the Daniel citation is an exhortation to
endurance and faithfulness to the end of human history, whenever that may come. Moreover, the Gospel
of Luke replaces Mark’s horrible catastrophe that defiles [Mark 13:14] with the encircling of Jerusalem
with armies [Luke 21:20]. Luke appears to see some historical import to this event in 66-70 A. D.
We need to remember that the abomination that desolates was, in the book of Daniel, a crisis of
faith. Prior to the act of sacrilege referred to in Daniel 11:31, Antiochus had taken other steps to basically
eradicate the faith element in Judaism. Among other things, Antiochus Epiphanes ordered that all people
should give up their customs [1 Macc 1:41]; this in turn found favor with many Jews who adopted the
religion of Antiochus and sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath [1 Macc 1:43]. Then, Antiochus
sent letters to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, directing them to forbid offerings and sacrifices in the
sanctuary, to profane the Sabbaths and the feasts [1 Macc 1:45], to defile the sanctuary and the priests [1
Macc 1:46], to build altars and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals [1 Macc 1:47], to
leave their sons uncircumcised [1 Macc 1:48], in effect they were to make themselves abominable by
everything unclean and profane [1 M 1:48], in order that they should forget the law and change all the
ordinances [1 Macc 1:49]. Antiochus decreed all of this under the penalty of death [1 Macc 1:50].
Then, in 167 BC, Antiochus polluted the temple in Jerusalem and called it the temple of the
Olympian Zeus [2 Macc 6:2]. According to 1 Macc 1:54, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the
altar of burnt offering. The meaning is that a pagan altar was erected in the temple to the pagan god,
Zeus.107 This is the abomination that ravages. This is the background of the citation, a citation that carries
very pronounced reminders of the necessity of endurance of Faith in the face of abominating Faithlessness.
One final point should be considered on the Daniel 12:11 passage. That is, there is nothing in the
context of the passage that demands the abomination that ravages signals the End of human history.
Rather, the last verse of the last chapter of the book of Daniel seems to encourage Daniel himself to remain
faithful to the end of the age [12:13].
It may be the case that the historical events surrounding the sack of Jerusalem in A. D. 66-70
precipitated some similar crisis of faith among Jews. At the same time, as Cranfield remarks, these events
in history are repeated again and again, so that the “new Israel like the old would be sinful and would again
and again be menaced by divine judgment.”108 As we have noted often in Daniel, there are patterns in
106
What is normally translated the abomination of desolation is τ̀ο βδέλυγμα τη̃ς έρημώσεως. We
translate – the horrible thing that defiles. In Luke’s account of the same event, Luke has when you see
Jerusalem encircled by armies, you will know that the desolation – the Greek has ὴ έρήμωσις [that which
causes something to be defiled/abandoned (Louw & Nida, 53.38]. The quotation used by Mark comes
from Daniel 12:11.
107
See also Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 256.
108
Cranfield, 404.
22
history, and crises in faith are one of them, especially the kind of crisis initiated by Antiochus and the
abomination that desolates – the eradication of faith from life.
Jesus further encourages the people to make haste and flee to avoid the catastrophe in Jerusalem
[13:15-18]. Indeed, the reference to fleeing to the mountains suggests seeking refuge in a time of war.109 If
this is the case, then the point concerns events in history as opposed to eschatological issues.
The final line in the unit, 13:19, affirms a time of enormous tribulation – for those days will come
[with] tribulation that has not happened since the beginning of creation until now, and never will. The
language in this verse is reminiscent of Daniel 12:1; note the comparison:
Mark 13:19 Daniel 12:1

̀εσονται γ̀αρ αὶ ̀ημέραι έκεîναι θλîψις καὶ εσται καιρὸς θλîψεως θλîψις
οία ού γέγονεν άφ΄ οû γεγένηται έθνος οία ού γέγονεν τοιαύτη άπ΄ άρχης κτίσεως
έως τοû νûν έως του καιροû έκείνος
The context of the Daniel 12 passage should once more be noted. That is, Daniel 12:1 opens with
a disjunctive waw that signals circumstances contemporary with those of the preceding context, 11:45.
The net effect is that Daniel 12:1 is syntactically tied to the time frame of the demise of the leader
mentioned in the preceding context. This idea of contemporary circumstance is also signaled by the
Hebrew of the Daniel 12:1 with the prepositional phrase – ‫איהה תעב‬/during that time – where the
preposition, ‫ב‬, with the definite article attached signals a back reference to the preceding context. 110 The
upshot is that Mark lifts out a passage that is, at the very least, tied to the historical period of the leader in
the last portion of Daniel 11, probably Antiochus Epiphanes.
At the same time, we shall argue that Daniel 12:1 may be understood in terms of a double
perspective, one immediate and the other ultimate. This may be why the Jesus of Mark uses this language
here. That tribulation will exist is simply a fact of the Christian life, in the here-and-now and up to the very
end. Politicians like the Antiochus of Daniel foisted tribulation upon the faithful in his era, and he has had
many successors. In fact, this verse in Mark indicates that the Antiochus-like figure will grow ever more
vicious.
Finally, the fact of tribulation needs to be noted. To begin with, the Daniel 12 passage does not
promise that the faithful will avoid the tribulation in Daniel. Even Michael does not prevent them from
enduring the tribulation. While it is said that he will deliver them in 12:1, the precise sense of will deliver
is teased out in 12:2 in terms of the general resurrection of the dead, when both the wicked and the
righteous receive their just reward. Likewise in the Mark 13:20 passage, Jesus simply indicates that, while
the tribulation will be endured, the time frame shall be less than it might have been.
The noun glossed tribulation – θλîψις – is a noun that simply signals direct suffering or more
generally persecution.111 The noun is used in the sense of persecution for the faith fairly often in the New
Testament.112 Such is the meaning here; Jesus affirms that the believing community can expect intense
though somewhat moderated persecution for the faith.
109
Ibid., 403.
110
Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé and Hans H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), § 24.4.4.
111
See Louw & Nida, 22.2.
112
Matthew 13:21; 24:9; Mark 4:17; John 16:33 (in the world, you will have tribulation); Acts
11:19; 14:22 (through many tribulations, we must enter the kingdom of God); 20:23; Romans 5:3; 8:35;
12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 8; 2:4; 4:17; 6:4; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1
Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 1:9; 2:9, 10, 22; 7:14.
23
Summary. The question that was asked of Jesus was – what is the sign or signs that signal the
End of time? Jesus’ first response, Mark 13:5-23, unveils a complex of events that amount to signs on
earth.
It is crucial to appreciate the way Mark has delimited the boundaries of his passage, 13:5-23, by
repeating at the beginning and the ending of the passage the same concerns. That is, the pericope opens
and closes with a warning about false Christs with an exhortation to beware. The time frame for the events
located within this unit, 13:5-23, depicts the kinds of events that Christians will have to endure from the
Incarnation to the End of time.
These events include: [1] false Messiahs, [2] international hostilities, [3] natural disaster, [4] crises
of faith, and [5] tribulation.
The allusion to Daniel 12:1 in Luke 13:19 may represent the use of the Daniel passage in the way
Daniel sought to have it read. That is, Daniel 12:1 may have had, for Daniel’s original readers, a
contemporary point of reference and an End time point of reference. This will become clear when we get
to the Daniel 12 pericope. In any event, the use of the Daniel 12 passage at the end of Mark 13:5-23
provides a nice transition to the next response.
The second response includes events of a more cosmic nature, 13:24-27. The time frame for
these cosmic events is signaled by the prepositional phrase – μετά τ̀ην θλîψιν έκείνην.
The preposition – μετά – when used with the accusative may be translated after, in a temporal
sense.113 The nuance of the temporal reference is probably general – after the time of tribulation. It seems
obvious that Jesus has in mind the kinds of events He has been describing in Mark 13:5-23. Precisely
when this is remains open.
The cosmic events include – [1] the sun will become darkened; [2] the moon will not give its light;
[3] the stars will be falling out of the heavens; and [4] the powers that are in the heavens will be violently
shaken [13:24b-25].
The reference to the sun will become darkened is most closely associated with Isaiah 13:10. The
texts are thus:
Mark 13:24 Isaiah 13:10

̀ο ήλιος σκοτισθήσεται σκοτισθήσεται τοû ̀ηλίου άνατέλλοντος
The clause in Isaiah comes in a context of judgment. Indeed, the broader context of 13:10 is
Isaiah’s declaration of Yahweh’s judgment on the nations, 13:1-23:18, of which Babylon is the first, 13:1.
In the Isaiah context, 13:10 is described in terms of the Day of the Lord – ‫ – אב הוהי־םוי‬in 13:6 and
13:9. The description in Isaiah 13:9 is of terrible wrath. That is, the Day of Yahweh is characterized as
‫ירזכא‬. This adjective may be glossed cruel.114 When used by other prophets, most notably Jeremiah, ‫ירזכא‬
implies the fierce strength of the enemy, indeed an enemy who shows no mercy.
113
F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, translated by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), § 226;
see also BAGD, who translated after (the time of) tribulation, where the sense of the phrase is general, 510.
114
KB¹, 46r;BDB, 470r,opts for cruel, fierce. The adjective is used twice in Job. On one
accession Job laments that Yahweh has become ‫ ירזכא‬to him, opposing Job by the strength of His hand [Job
30:21]. Then, Yahweh uses the term in reference to Leviathan who no one is so ‫ירזכא‬/fierce as to oppose
him [41:2]. In these two instances, ‫ ירזכא‬seems to be associated with facing overwhelming strength.
Elsewhere, ‫ ירזכא‬is used in Jeremiah 6:23; 50:42 more fully described as without mercy. In Jeremiah 30:14,
‫ ירזכא‬is used in tandem with the wound of an enemy.
24
Isaiah 13:9 continues by noting that the Day of Yahweh will be with fury and burning wrath.115
Both terms appear to underline the complete destruction that is unleashed in the fury of Yahweh upon the
godless [Isaiah 10:6], against the proud [Job 40:11]. At the same time, this side of Yahweh’s fury can be
appreciated, evoking a high level of the fear that is due You [Psalm 90:11].
Finally, Isaiah 13:9 unpacks the purpose behind this outpouring of fury – [1] to bring the earth to
devastation and [2] to exterminate sinners. Any way the reader wants to take this, the picture is deadly and
dreadful.
The noun glossed devastation – ‫ – המש‬points to some horrific or atrocious event.116 The net effect
of Yahweh’s burning rage against the sin of mankind is to leave the earth an object of appalling horror.
The second purpose is even more appalling – to exterminate sinners. The operative term is
‫דמש‬/exterminate. The verb used here is in the Hiphil stem in the Hebrew. Accordingly, while the gloss for
the term is still exterminate, the sense of the Hiphil stem focuses attention on the deliberateness of the
internally causative action of the verb, yielding the sense – to feel oneself compelled (obligated) to
exterminate something.117 The nuance of the verb is straightforward, indicating extermination or
annihilation.118
The upshot is that the sun will become darkened is drawn from prophetic context that proclaims
the complete and utterly devastating wrath of God upon the sin of mankind. It is one thing to take the sun
will become darkened at face value and read a cosmic event of solar darkening. It is quite another to fully
appreciate the fierce cruelty, the complete absence of mercy on the objects of Yahweh’s wrath, and the
sense of obligation Yahweh has to exterminate sinners that is in the background of this imagery.
The second cosmic event is – the moon will not give its light. Again, this text seems most
closely related to the Isaiah 13:10 passage. The texts are thus:

̀η σελήνη ού δώσει τ̀ο φέγγος αύτης ̀η σελήνη ού δώσει τ̀ο φως αύτης
The matters of context and content that applied to the previous sentence in Isaiah also apply here.
That is, the line is part of the Day of the Lord – ‫ – הוהי־םוי‬and is a day of cruel wrath. The day will be one
115
Fury and burning wrath glosses ‫ףא ןורחו הרבע‬. The noun translated fury – ‫[ הרבע‬noun, fm, sg] –
may also be rendered anger, rage [KB¹, 782r]. The noun is used by Yahweh in Job 40:11 of the kind of
overflowing rage directed to the proud. The Psalmist uses ‫ הרבע‬to describe the devastation of Egypt in the
Exodus. In one of the more powerful and spiritually compelling uses of ‫הרבע‬, the Psalmist notes the kind
of respect for Yahweh this ‫ הרבע‬is to evoke in 90:11, namely, the fear that is due You. Isaiah also uses the
noun to describe the ‫ הרבע‬of the wrath of Yahweh in terms of the people being fuel for fire [9:18].
Moreover, when speaking of Yahweh’s wrath against Assyria, Yahweh describes the people of My ‫ הרבע‬as
a godless nation [10:6]. For similar draconian images associated with ‫הרבע‬, see Ezekiel 22:21, 31;
Zephaniah 1:15.
The collocation burning wrath – ‫ – ףא ןורחו‬implies a wrath that utterly consumes its object. In
Numbers 25:4, ‫ ףא ןורחו‬leads to public executions of those who worshiped a foreign god. See also Jeremiah
30:24; 49:37; Lamentations 4:11; Jonah 3:9; Nahum 1:6.
116
KB², 1553r; BDB, 1031, the occasion of an appalling horror.
117
KB², 1553.
118
Ibid.
25
of complete destruction of those who opposed Yahweh; it will be a day in which His terrible fury is
unleashed on those who defied Him. The Day of the Lord will be a day of appalling horror, culminating in
the extermination of sinners.
The parallel text in Luke, 21:25-26, indicates the worldwide scope of these cosmic phenomena.
The population of the earth will be effected by these cosmic events. In Luke 21:25, he writes that there will
be acute anxiety among the nations.119 The upshot is that, for Luke, these cosmic rumblings, which precede
the End or the return of the Messiah, evoke mortal fear on the part of earth’s inhabitants.
Luke also describes the cosmic catastrophe in terms of people fainting out of fear [Luke 21:26].
The verb glossed fainting does point to the psychological and physiological experience of losing
consciousness.120 The basis for this emotional distress is fear, a term that describes, “a state of severe
distress aroused by intense concern for impending danger.”121 There is a second basis for this intense
emotional reaction to the cosmic events. That is, Luke mentions – the expectation of things that are
coming upon the world. The line hints that the population of the earth thinks that future contingencies are
very bleak indeed.
The net effect is that Luke adds the worldwide scope of human anxiety, despair, and anguish at the
“astronomical signs in the heavens that indicate that the end is at hand.”122
The upshot is that the moon will not give its light is drawn from the same prophetic context in
Isaiah as the reference to the sun being darkened. Both are indicative of cosmic events that signal the
End of human history, as we know it. The moon not giving its light is also a portent of the Day of
Yahweh, a day of fierce cruelty leveled against those whose pride prompted defiance of Yahweh.
The third cosmic event is – the stars will be falling from the heavens [Mark 13:25]. The closest
parallel from the Old Testament is probably Isaiah 34:4. The texts are thus:

Οì άστέρες έσονται έκ τοû οúρανοû πίποντες πάντα τ̀α άστρα πεσεîται ̀ως φύλλα έξ άμπέλου
The Isaiah 34 context is once more a context of judgment, albeit judgment on the nations [34:1],
the earth and the world [34:1]. One would surmise that Mark’s choice of this passage is for its emphasis on
the universal range of judgment.
To be sure, the scope of the wrath of God in judgment extends to πάντα τ̀α άστρα – all the
stars/host [34:4]. The point of the Isaiah text is that not only are humans judged but also the entire
universe is subject to judgment. This point is confirmed by noting the opening sentence in the Hebrew text
119
The noun glossed acute anxiety – συνοχή – implies a state of mental distress, involving acute
anxiety [Louw & Nida, 25.240]. BAGD, 791, translates the noun – distress, dismay, and anguish. In
secular Greek usage, συνοχή has a place in ancient Greek astrology. Συνοχή is used in reference to “the
misfortune indicated by unfavorable constellations” and thus comes to mean “anxiety or despair” on the
basis of astrological pronouncements [Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. VII, Σ, “συνοχή” by Helmut Köster, (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1971), 886].
120
Louw & Nida, 23.184.
121
Louw & Nida, 25.251; the noun is found within a sub-domain that includes words for fear,
terror and alarm.
122
I. Howard Marshall and Ward Gasque, ed., The New International Greek Testament
Commentary, The Gospel of Luke by I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978),
775.
26
of Isaiah 34:4. The prophet says that all the host of heaven will rot – ‫וקמנ‬.123 Using agricultural imagery –
as the leaf withers from the vine – the prophet likens the judgment on the universe with the reaping of a
dying and decaying harvest.124
The net effect is that Jesus alludes to a passage from Isaiah that broadens the scope of the
judgment to include the universe as a whole. At the very least, the judgment of the host of heaven does
signal the End of human history and the onset of final judgment of all mankind.
The fourth cosmic event is – the powers that are in the heavens will be violently shaken. It
would seem that Joel 2:10 is the context from which this line is drawn. The other contender is Joel 3:16.
Either way, the line seems to be lifted from the prophecy of Joel. Based upon the fact that Joel 2 mentions
the other cosmic players we have already seen – sun, moon, and stars – a reasonable choice for the
background text is Joel 2:10. The texts are these:
Mark 13:25 Joel 2:10

ὰι δυνάμεις ὰι έν τοîς ούρανοîς σαλευθήσονται σεισθήσεται ̀ο ούρανός
The book of Joel makes use of the Day of the Lord motif in a major way. In Joel 1:15, ‫ הוהי־םוי‬is
near; in Joel 2:1, the ‫ הוהי־םוי‬is near and advancing; in Joel 2:11, the ‫ הוהי־םוי‬is both overpowering and
unendurable; in Joel 2:31, the ‫ הוהי־םוי‬is cosmic in nature and onset; finally, in Joel 3:14, the ‫ הוהי־םוי‬is
associated with the valley of the verdict. Clearly, the Joel 2:10 text is bracketed by mention of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬.
We may have some hint as to why Jesus chose Joel 2:10 by noting some elements in the context,
2:1-11.
To begin with, in Joel 2:1, the prophet affirms that the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh is near. The
Hebrew adjective – ‫ – בורק‬may be glossed close, soon in respect of time.125 The nearness in time of the
‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh is a motif picked up by Jesus in Mark 13:28, the lesson of the fig tree.
Then, in Joel 2:2, we are told that the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh is a day of darkness and of gloom.
The first noun – ‫ – ךשח‬is a figure of impending disaster.126 The second noun – ‫ – הלפא‬again is a figure of
calamity associated with the judgment of Yahweh.127 Joel tops off this sentence by noting – the like of this
never has been nor never will be again – implying the unparalleled nature of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh in
human events.
In one way or another, the prophet underlines the unstoppable character of this impending
judgment. In 2:3, this judgment is consuming – ‫ – לכא‬whatever is before it, and devours with flames – ‫טהל‬
– everything in its path. Indeed, in 2:3, the prophet says – nothing escapes, ‫טלפ‬. In a powerful metaphor
drawing upon an advancing army in Joel 2:8, the prophet says – when arrows fall, they do not stop! The
resolve of this unstoppable foe is obvious.
Finally, the prophet underscores the unendurable nature of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh in 2:11.
Joel uses a rhetorical question to forcefully underline the fact that no one can contain, endure the
‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh – ‫ונליכי ימ‬.
123
The Hebrew term used here – ‫ – קקמ‬may be glossed to rot, to melt, to dissolve [KB¹, 628r].
124
For the thought of the universe being caught up in a fallen state, see Romans 8:22.
125
KB², 1139r.
126
KB¹, 362r.
127
BDB, 66r.
27
We may draw together the various lines from the Joel 2 context in order to appreciate its impact
on Mark 13:25.
To begin with, the import of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh in Joel should be taken into account. As
noted above, Joel seems to rely very heavily on the motif throughout his book [1:15; 2:1, 11; 2:31; 3:14].
Attached to these passages is the nearness of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh [1:15]. To be sure, the
‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh is not only near but it is also inevitably advancing [2:1]. Once the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of
Yahweh actually arrives, it will be overpowering and unendurable [2:11]; it will be cosmic in scope [2:31];
and it will bring Yahweh’s verdict [3:14]. The nearness motif is picked up in the parable of the fig tree in
Mark 13:28-31. The overpowering and unendurable nature of the judgment has been a key theme through
the passage. We have already noted the impact of Isaiah 13:10 on Mark 13:24; that is the fury and burning
wrath of Yahweh, the devastation of the earth along with the extermination of sinners. Finally, the cosmic
range of this judgment has been echoed in Mark with the impact of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh on the sun,
moon and stars.
The first two responses to the four disciples’ original question have been discussed. Before
moving to the third response, let’s summarize the first two responses to this point.
At the outset, the question posed was: What are the signs of the End? Jesus proceeds to give them
three responses [Mark 13:5-23; 13:24-27; 13:28-37]. The first response is an answer in terms of events on
the earth from the time period between the Incarnation to the End. The kinds of events on the earth that
will be dominant in the human scene during this period include: [1] false Messiahs, [2] international
hostilities, [3] natural disaster, [4] crises of faith, and [5] severe persecution.
The second response, 13:24-27, seems to draw upon the Old Testament motif of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day
of Yahweh as the onset of the End of human history. The reference to the cosmic events involving the sun,
the moon, and the stars are lifted from Old Testament passages [Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; Joel 2:10] that see these
events as signs of the onset of the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh in final judgment. Isaiah 13:9-10 foresees the
‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh as coming with fierce cruelty and showing no mercy upon all who have defied
Yahweh. Indeed, the purposes are to bring the earth to devastation and the exterminate sinners [13:9]. The
contribution of the Isaiah 34 text in Mark 13:25 is to underscore the fact that the cosmos itself is subject to
this final judgment. Then, Jesus returns to the ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh motif in mark 13:25, where He
seems to lift out Joel 2:10. That the powers that are in heaven will be violently shaken signals the
‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh. The ‫הוהי־םוי‬/Day of Yahweh in Joel is near and advancing, overpowering and
beyond human capacity to endure, cosmic in scope and renders Yahweh’s final verdict on humanity.
At least this much seems clear to this point. We now move to the conclusion of the second
response, the finale that introduces the son of man coming upon the clouds.
The second response is capped off with the denouement in Mark 13:26-27. The text reads: Then,
they will see the son of man coming upon the clouds with great power and glory [13:26]. Then, He will
send forth His angels and will bring together His elect from the four winds, from the most extreme
boundaries of the earth to the most extreme limits of heaven [13:27]. Both of these verses need to be read
in the context of 13:24 ff. That is, we read 13:26-27 as cosmic events of the End of human history as we
know it. The text should also be read as the final arrival of judgment.
It will be well to consider how Mark uses the phrase τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου.128 We may
understand τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου as a self-identification concerning Jesus’ deity and His destiny, or, more
simply, His Person and His work.
128
The phrase – τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου – appears fourteen times in the Gospel of Mark [2:10, 28;
3:28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62]. The phrase - τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου – is used
by Jesus in Mark as a designation of His deity [Mark 2:10 (authority to forgive sins), 28 (Lord of the
Sabbath); 14:62 (sitting at the right hand of power)]; as a designation of His destiny [Mark 8:31 (Cross);
9:9 (Resurrection), 12 (suffer), 31 (Cross and Resurrection); 10:33 (Cross and Resurrection); 10:45 (to
serve as a ransom); 14:21, 41 (betrayal)]; as a designation of His coming in judgment [Mark 8:38].
28
That His deity is implied in Jesus’ use of τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου is clear in Mark 2:10, where He
claims the authority to forgive sin. That Jesus applies the phrase τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου to His deity seems
equally clear in His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath [Mark 2:28]. Finally, the deity of Jesus is indicated in
His reply to the High Priest to the effect that this man shall see Jesus sitting at the right hand of power
[Mark 16:62]. The net effect is that son of man is a self-designation that Jesus chose and used it to
reinforce His deity.
The phrase is also used to communicate the work this designation of deity takes on. For, the
phrase τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου is a designation of Jesus’ destiny. In essence, His destiny/work is described
in two ways – His Cross and Resurrection and His return in Judgment at the End.
It is clear that Jesus’ self-designation, τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου, includes His Crucifixion and His
Resurrection [Mark 8:31 (the son of man must suffer and be rejected and be killed and after three days rise
again); 9:9 (the disciples are instructed not to speak of the things they had just seen until the son of man
rose from the dead), 12 (the son of man will be treated with contempt and suffer many things), 31 (the son
of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, killed and rise three days later); 10:33 (the son of man
will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes; they will condemn Him to death and hand Him over to
Gentiles), 45 (the son of man came to give His life a ransom for many); 14:41 (the son of man is being
betrayed into the hands of sinners)].
It is equally obvious that this self-designation also includes His role in Judgment [Mark 8:38 (the
son of man … when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels); 13:26 (the son of man
coming upon the clouds with great power and glory); 14:62 (the son of man sitting at the right hand of
Power and coming with the clouds of heaven)].
That these twin elements – the Cross and Resurrection along with Judgment – are carried in the
self-designation is clear on Jesus’ own statements regarding τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου. The question is: why
does He choose it to begin with? The answer to this question relates to the use of the phrase in Daniel.
In Mark 8:29, Peter makes a famous confession – σ̀υ εί ̀ο χριστός. Jesus then warns them to say
nothing about this; He also begins to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things, be
rejected, killed, and, after three days, rise again [Mark 8:31]. Why does Jesus turn from the designation –
The Christ/Messiah – to son of man? The fact of the matter is that, the title Messiah, at this time, was
capable of more than one meaning.
In the era immediately preceding the entry of Jesus onto the public scene, the Qumran sect seems
to have interpreted the Messianic ideal in two directions. In one ideal, the Messiah was a royal messiah and
would play a key role in the liberation of Israel. As Craig Evens notes, “Qumran’s expectation of a
conquering royal messiah [emphasis mine] is not distinctive and appears to be entirely consistent with
Jewish messianic and eschatological traditions from the time of Qumran, through the New Testament
period, and on into the time of the rabbis.”129 In another ideal, the Messiah is thought of as a priestly
Messiah.130 In this ideal, at stake were “the role of the priest and the function of the temple cultus.”131
It would seem that, in the midst of this bifurcation of the messianic ideal, Jesus Himself chooses a
self-designation that He can use for His own description of His ministry. Moreover, as we have noted, the
Hebrew and Aramaic designations for son of man per se are not described in terms of Death and
Resurrection in their Old Testament uses. We may assume that Jesus took the role of the son of man, as
129
John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler, ed., Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “Qumran’s
Messiah: How Important Is He?” by Craig Evans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 146. For
additional insight, see Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, ed., Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, “‘And When That One Comes’: Aspects of Johannine Messianism,” by Dietmar Neufeld, 120-40
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997).
130
Ibid., 146-47.
131
Ibid., 148.
29
depicted in Daniel 7, and then fulfilled it in ways not foreseen in the Old Testament depictions of son of
man, highlighting especially His death on the Cross and subsequent Resurrection.
The upshot is that, while Mark 8 does link son of man with Messiah so that one may read son of
man as Messianic, Jesus chooses to avoid the confusions of the era and uses a self-designation at hand that
He can fill with additional meaning. The self-designation – son of man – carries content in Daniel 7 to
which Jesus adds His own unique meaning; i.e., the Cross and Resurrection.
Summary. The evidence of the use of τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου in Mark 13 suggests that the phrase
was a self-designation that Jesus Chose Himself. He filled the content of that designation with references
to His deity [Mark 2:10, 28; 16:62] and His destiny [Mark 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:41]. The destiny
that is specified by τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου is Messianic in nature. Thus, the reader may understand a
Messianic reference to τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου.
Moreover, the use of τ̀ον ὺὶον τοû άνθρώπου in 13:26 is set within a context, 13:24-27 that
concerns the End. The uses that Mark makes of the Old Testament references, Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; and Joel
2:10 all pertain to the final judgment.
We return to the Daniel 7 passage to discover exactly what the role of the ‫ שנא רב‬was to which
Jesus added His unique content, the Cross and Resurrection.
7:13c The appearance of the ‫ שנא רב‬in 7:13b is followed by his presentation to ancient of days – to
ancient of days he came.132
The sentence is an assertive, making the claim that the son of man is brought up to or as far as
ancient of days. The aspect of the verb simply records the fact.
7:13d This sentence seems to clarify how the son of man was presented before ancient of days. The
sentence affirms – before him, they brought him near.133
The language here has the sense of one who is presented before a king or deity. As Montgomery
notes, “the idea is that of a royal audience.”134 Indeed, as we shall soon note, the son of man is brought
before ancient of days to be invested as a king.135 This is made clear in the next sentences.
132
To ancient of days he came glosses ‫הטמ אימוי קיתע־דע‬. The preposition – ‫ – דע‬is used with
spatial import, declaring that the son of man was brought up to ancient of days [KB², 1943r], indicating
local direction [Rosenthal § 81]. The verb in the sentence – ‫[ הטמ‬Pe’al, perfect, 3rd, ms] – may be glossed
to come upon (with ‫[ )דע‬KB², 1914r]; BDB, 1100r, opts for to come as far as. The perfect aspect simply
records the fact in simple past [Rosenthal § 42; Bauer-Leander § 79 h].
133
Before him, they brought him near renders a prepositional phrase – ‫[ יהומדק‬preposition with a
rd
3 , ms, suffix]. The preposition is used with spatial import [KB², 1967r]; this preposition is used
especially to signal the presentation of a person before a king [Daniel 2:9, 11, 25, 27, 36; 3:13; 4:6, 8; 5:13,
15, 17, 19, 23; 6:13, 14, 19] or before Yahweh [6:11, 12; 7:10, 13]. The verb in the line – ‫[ יהוברקה‬Haph’el,
perfect, 3rd, ms, pl with a 3rd, ms, suffix] – may be glossed to bring near, to allow to enter in this stem [KB²,
1973r]; BDB, 1111r, to bring before a deity; Holladay, 420r, to bring someone near, to present. The stem
contains a causative nuance [Bauer-Leander § 76 n].
134
Montgomery, 304.
135
See Baldwin, 143; Goldingay, 168.
30
7:14a The sentence is a statement of the royal dominion that is given to the son of man. The sentence
reads: to him was given dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom.
The verb in the sentence – was given – has appeared previously in the book of Daniel.136 As in
other texts in Daniel, the verb is in a passive stem that implies some unidentified agent is doing the giving.
In this case, we may surmise that the one who is acting as the agent of the giving is ancient of days. In
seven other passages in Daniel [2:37, 38; 5:18, 19, 28; 7:6, 27], Yahweh may be the presumptive giver of
either a kingdom or dominion, as we have here. However, in those seven cases, the recipient is human,
while the one like a son of man comes upon the clouds, implying divine origin.
Accordingly, the ancient of days confers upon one like a son of man dominion, royal honor, and
a kingdom.
The noun glossed dominion is a term we have also seen previously. ‫ ןטלש‬is used in reference to
both human dominion, as either granted [4:19; 7:6, 26, 27] or lost [7:12, 26], as well as divine dominion
[4:3, 34; 7:14].
The language for dominion is a power term.137 The term suggests the actual possession of power
as well as the use of it. Indeed, the Hebrew cognate – ‫ – טלש‬is among a field of terms in the Hebrew Bible
for kingship, rule, supervision and dominion.138 Accordingly, when ancient of days gave the son of man
dominion, he gave him rule, mastery and strength, presumably within the kingdom the son of man
receives.
There are two issues to take note of here. First, ‫ ןטלש‬is used of both Yahweh and mankind. But,
second, the use of ‫ ןטלש‬in 7:12 concerns the loss of ‫ןטלש‬, followed by 7:14, where the son of man is given
‫ןטלש‬. There seems to be, on Yahweh’s part, a transfer of ‫ ןטלש‬implied between 7:12 and 7:14. The ‫ןטלש‬
these nations once exercised is now in the hands of the son of man. The dominion and authority of the
aforementioned earthly kingdoms is transferred to a son of man, whom we shall soon see, is the
representative of a new kingdom and a new humanity [7:27].139
136
Was given glosses – ‫[ ביהי‬Pe’il, perfect, 3rd, ms] – and appears in Daniel twenty times. For the
most part, the verb is used in a passive sense to underscore the agency of some undefined actor. Normally,
one may intuit that the verb is used in the passive sense with the implication that Yahweh is one who is
doing the giving – wisdom to Daniel [2:21, 23], kingdoms to various recipients [2:37, 38; 5:18, 19, 28] as
well as dominion [7:6, 27], the mind of a beast to Nebuchadnezzar [4:13], a human mind to the first beast
[7:4]. For the passive nuance of this stem, see Bauer-Leander § 104 b΄-g΄.
137
The Aramaic root in the verbal form - ‫טלש‬- may be glossed to rule, to make oneself master in
Imperial Aramaic and in Egyptian Aramaic; in Syriac, it may be rendered to rule, to suppress. In the book
of Daniel, the verb is used in the sense of to rule over, to have power over, to make oneself master of, to
make someone the ruler over [KB², 1995]. The Aramaic root in the nominal form - ‫ ןטלש‬- may signify
dominion, power, ruler in the Dead Sea Scrolls; might, dominion in Syriac, or dominion in the book of
Daniel [KB², 1995]. The root implies gaining power or having power; the nominal form implies that which
has power, or is even domineering. The noun is used ten times in Daniel, twice of Yahweh’s
‫ןטלש‬/dominion [4:3, 34] and eight times of the ‫ןטלש‬/dominion of a man [4:22; 6:27; 7:6, 12 (‫ ןטלש‬is taken
away), 26, 27].
138
See “Kingship, rule, supervision and dominion” in NIDOTTE.
139
See the excellent statement of D. S. Russell, Daniel, 122, on this point.
31
The son of man also receives royal honor.140 Once again, as with the previous noun – ‫ – ןטלש‬the
noun used here – ‫ – רקי‬is also at one time the gift bestowed up a human political/military leader of a nation
[2:37; 4:30, 36; 5:18, 20]. The nature of this bestowal of ‫ רקי‬is the gift of imperial dignity or royal honor.
If we take the LXX translator as a guide, the ‫ רקי‬is the kind of esteem, honor, dignity and lordship that is
the attribute of either a god or a king.
It may be significant for the reader to appreciate that ‫ קרי‬appears for the last time in Daniel 7:12.
It is interesting to speculate that 7:12 may be the last transference of this ‫ רקי‬that actually matters. In any
event, as with ‫ןטלש‬/dominion, ‫קרי‬/royal honor is transferred from the human to the son of man. The son of
man in Daniel 7:14 is now the one who is invested with value, royal dignity and royal honor; it is he who is
esteemed in his lordship.
Finally, the vision report adds that a kingdom was given to the son of man.141 In some contexts,
‫ וכלמ‬points to the sovereignty exercised by a king, the kingly authority, the sovereign power exercised by an
emperor [2:37; 4:28, 33].142 In other contexts, ‫ וכלמ‬may simply be used to refer to an organized kingdom,
or more simply, mankind [2:39, 40, 41, 42, 44], sometimes with specific reference to the kingdom of God
[3:33; 4:31; 6:27; 7:27], or the Messianic kingdom [7:14], or the kingdom of the saints [7:18, 22, 27].
It seems clear that ‫ וכלמ‬in the sense of the sovereignty exercised by a political/military head of
state is a bestowal by Yahweh [2:37-39; 4:17 (The Most High is the ruler over the realm of mankind), 26;
5:18, 21]. Moreover, Yahweh also removes ‫[ וכלמ‬4:31-32 (in this case until Nebuchadnezzar recognizes
that Yahweh is the ruler over the realm of mankind, bestowing it on whomever He wishes); 5:20, 26, 28].
It is only the ‫ וכלמ‬of Yahweh that is eternal [4:34; 6:27; 7:14]. Finally, it is the ‫ וכלמ‬that is given both to
the son of man [7:14, 27b] and the saints of the Most High [7:18, 22, 27a]. This last observation paves the
way for the son of man and the saints of the Most High as participants in the new ‫וכלמ‬.
7:14b With this sentence, the purpose or intention of the investiture of the son of man with the
prerogatives, powers, and privileges once held by earthly kings now comes into focus. 7:14b reads – so
that every people, nation, and language, to him, would pay reverence.
So that expresses intention.143 The nature of that intention for investing the son of man figure with
dominion, royal honor and a kingdom is for universal reverence. The reader should give attention to the
140
Royal power is glossed ‫[ רקי‬noun, ms, sg]. The noun may be translated dignity, honor [KB²,
1893r; also BDB, 1096r]; Holladay, 408r, opts for honor, majesty. The Akkadian cognate in the verbal
form, aqāru, may be rendered to be precious, to make rare, to value, to honor [William Yarchin, “‫רקי‬,” in
NIDOTTE]. The nominal Arabic cognate, waqār, refers to dignity, and the Ugaritic adjectival cognate, yqr,
is translated precious [Ibid.]. The Aramaic noun, ‫רקי‬, appears seven times in the Aramaic of the Hebrew
Bible, all of them in Daniel [2:6, 37; 4:30, 36; 5:18, 20; 7:14]. The sense of the term implies imperial
honor attached to the political and military leader of a nation in 2:37, which is a bestowal by Yahweh. ‫רקי‬
is most assuredly not the result of the efforts of political and military leaders themselves, as Daniel’s use of
‫ רקי‬in 4:30 makes abundantly clear. To be sure, after his abasement, Yahweh restores the ‫ רקי‬of
Nebuchadnezzar to him; it was never Nebuchadnezzar’s to begin with [4:36; 5:18, 20]. The LXX translator
uses ̀η τιμ̀η [worship, esteem, honor, such as are accorded to the gods or to superiors; honor, dignity,
lordship, as an attribute of god or kings (LSJ, 1793)]. The semantic field of the Aramaic and Hebrew term,
‫רקי‬, comes from a field of terms for what is precious, costly [Yarchin, “‫רקי‬,” in NIDOTTE].
141
The noun translated kingdom – ‫[ וכלמ‬noun, fm, sg] – appears fifty three times in the book of
Daniel [2:37, 39, 40-42, 44; 4:3, 17-18, 25-26, 29-32, 34, 36; 5:7, 11, 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28-29; 6:1-2, 4-5,
8, 27, 29; 7:14, 18, 22-24, 27 (there are multiple references in some of these verses)].
142
The noun - ‫[ וכלמ‬noun, fm, sg,] - may be glossed kingship, sovereignty [KB², 1917r]; kingdom,
reign [Rosenthal 89]; an organized kingdom [BDB, 1100r].
143
For the connective, waw, used to express an intention, see BDB, 1091; KB², 1862; Bauer-
Leander § 70 c΄.
32
nouns – people, nation, and language – since this collocation of nouns appears only in Daniel in the
Hebrew Bible. We have seen these three previously, and their use here continues the transfer motif begun
with the previous terms.144 That is, Daniel 5:19 affirms that it is Yahweh who bestowed greatness on
Nebuchadnezzar, such that all people, nations, and language groups feared him and trembled before him.
Now, universal reverence for the son of man is an option for all people, nations, and tongues.145 The first
noun seems to indicate people from an ethnic point of view; the second noun appears to point to nations as
people groups united by a common ancestry; and the last word covers people groups as identifiable through
language. Taken as a whole, no exclusions are implied. The list describing the populace would seem to be
an attempt to be inclusive. The reverence for this son of man is to be worldwide.
The reader might also note the difference in the nature of the kingdom of man – Nebuchadnezzar
– and the kingdom of the son of man. According to Daniel 5:19, the former was a kingdom that relied on
fear and intimidation. In the 5:19 text, the net effect of the influence that Yahweh granted this political
leader was that people in masse used to dread and fear in his presence.146 Syntactically, the form of the
verbal construction indicates an ongoing and typical reaction to the political leadership of Nebuchadnezzar.
The man used the authority and influence that was on loan to him to inspire terror and alarm. The
following lines tease out the details of this political leadership via fear and intimidation in matters of death
[5:19c] and life [5:19d]. The nature of the dominion, royal power and kingdom exercised by the son of
man figure is quite different.
The vision reports that the intention behind investing this man with powers formerly held by
earthly rulers is to replace the apprehension with pay reverence to him.147 The verb used here – ‫– חלפ‬
144
People, nation and language glosses ‫אינשלו אימא איממע‬. These three nouns also appear in Daniel
3:4, 7, 29; 4:1 [in a declaration by Nebuchadnezzar to his subjects]; 5:19 [of Yahweh’s bestowal of
greatness on Nebuchadnezzar toward his subjects]; 6:25; 7:14.
145
The first noun - ‫[ אממע‬noun, ms, pl, determined] - may be glossed people, the populace [KB²,
1950r; see also BDB, 1107r]; Holladay, 416r, affirms that the noun signals ethnic groups. The LXX
translator uses [a nation, people (LSJ, 480)]. The noun implies an ethnic identity based on blood
relationships [see Daniel Block, “Nations/Nationality: Theology,” in NIDOTTE]
The second noun - ‫[אימא‬noun, fm, pl, determined]% - may be glossed nation [KB², 1815r; see also
BDB, 1081r]. The LXX translator uses  [a people; i.e., all who are called by one name (LSJ, 1030)].
Daniel Block notes that ‫המא‬may refer to a clan or a nation as descended from a common ancestry [Daniel
Block, “Nations/Nationality,” in NIDOTTE].
The third noun - ‫[אינשל‬noun, fm, pl, determined]+ - may be glossed tongue, language, language
group, people [KB², 1909r].
146
Kept on dreading and fearing in his presence renders ‫יהומדק־ןמ ןילחדו ןיעיז ווה‬. Overall, the
construction uses a finite verb – ‫ – הוה‬followed by two participles, a construction that signals an ongoing
state of affairs [see Rosenthal § 177]. The translation could also be – used to dread and fear in his
presence. The participle translated dread – ‫[ ןיעיז‬Pe’al, participle, ms, pl] – indicates one who trembles in
the presence of another [KB², 1864r]. Accordingly, the sense of the term points to the physical
manifestations of fear. The second participle – ‫[ ןילחד‬Pe’al, participle, ms, pl] – points more generally to
the emotion of fear [KB², 1850r].
147
The verb glossed pay reverence –  [Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl] – implies servanthood;
the verb in Imperial Aramaic as well as Egyptian Aramaic is used in reference to serving God [KB², 1957].
The Akkadian verb – palāhu – may be glossed to venerate, to fear, to respect. KB², 1957r, translates to
serve; BDB, 1108r, opts for to pay reverence to; Holladay, 417r, goes with serve.
The verb is used ten times in the Aramaic portion of the Hebrew Bible, once in Ezra [7:24] and
nine times in Daniel [3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 6:17, 21; 7:14, 27]. The appearances in Daniel 3 and 7 have
interesting parallel terms with ‫חלפ‬. That is, the Daniel 3 passages [3:12, 14, 18, 28] use ‫ חלפ‬in parallel with
‫דגס‬. This particular verb – ‫ – דגס‬has connotations of to pay homage to [KB², 1937r; see also BDB, 1104r;
Holladay, 414r]. Terence Fretheim notes that this verb carries with it the notion of obeisance [Terence
33
implies veneration and servanthood. It may well be the case that the scales are tipped in the direction of
serving the son of man, ultimately in the sense of showing oneself obedient to him [7:27]. At the same
time, it would seem reasonably clear that ‫ חלפ‬also brings along with it fear, veneration, self-denial, and
trust. Reverence comes out in a willingness to do the bidding of the son of man.148
Once more, there is an element of transference, since the verb ‫ חלפ‬is used in Daniel 3 of
Nebuchadnezzar’s attempt to get the three Jews to serve and worship the statue he had created. As noted at
the time, this was a brazen attempt to wed religion with politics, with the ultimate allegiance going to the
political side of the equation. In the Daniel 7:14 passage, the purpose behind the investiture of the son of
man with the powers and prerogatives once given to earthly kings is to eliminate acquiescence and slavish
submission to political figures in exchange for willingly serving the son of man.
7:14c This sentence contains an assertion concerning the quality of the dominion of the son of man. The
visionary reports that his dominion will be an everlasting dominion that will never pass away.
Obviously, the emphasis in the line is on the permanence of the dominion of the son of man.
The noun – ‫םלע‬/everlasting – and the relative clause – ‫הדעי אל־יד‬/that will never pass away –
communicate this perpetual stability. As we shall soon note, this also is a marked change from the patterns
in the history of the kings and princes of the Ancient Near East.
The noun ‫םלע‬/everlasting149 points to a quality of dominion not shared with the previous human
dominions. As we have seen [Daniel 2, 5, 7], kingdoms come and go; there is nothing really fixed about
them. In contrast is the dominion of the son of man, for his dominion is permanent, stretching forward in
time in perpetuity. As D. S. Russell notes regarding these previous human dominions:150
They had disappeared, the victims of enemy attack or their own internal
corruption and strife. But the coming kingdom is altogether different. It
will never be destroyed (2:46; 4:3; 6:26; 7:14, 27). It will not be succeeded
by another, but will endure forever.
Moreover, the relative clause also underlines the permanence of the dominion of the son of man.
The visionary affirms that his dominion will never pass away.151 An interesting gloss for this verb is to
Fretheim, “‫דגס‬,” in NIDOTTE]. The net effect is that the directive in 3:12 that uses ‫ דגס‬implies self-denial
or self-humiliation leading to obeisance. This falling and worshiping is a way of showing acquiescence to
the person of Nebuchadnezzar; it is a way of showing due regard for him through submission to his
authority.
Finally, among the terms used to unpack the sense of ‫ חלפ‬in Daniel 3 is its use with the verb – ‫ץחר‬
– to place one’s trust in another [Daniel 3:28].
In another interesting parallel, ‫ חלפ‬is parallel to ‫ עמש‬in Daniel 7:27 in the sense of to show oneself
obedient to.
The LXX translator uses δουλεύω [to serve, to be subject to (LSJ, 446)].
148
See Slotki, 60, for the thought.
149
‫םלע‬/everlasting [noun, ms, sg] points to duration, eternity [KB², 1949r]; perpetuity in the future
[BDB, 1106r]; Holladay, 416r, remote time, eternity. This noun is used in this sense in Daniel 2:44; 4:3,
34; 6:26; 7:14, 18, 27 [of Yahweh’s dominion and kingdom].
150
Russell, Daniel, 123.
151
Will never pass away translates ‫הדעי אל־יד‬. The verb in the line – ‫[ הדעי‬Pe’al, imperfect, 3rd, ms]
– may be glossed in a variety of ways in this context: to vanish [KB², 1944r], to go away in the sense of to
be taken [KB², 1944]; BDB, 1105r, opts for to pass on, to pass away. In Imperial Aramaic and Egyptian
Aramaic, the verb signals to remove, to take away [KB², 1943]. Rosenthal, 92, glosses to pass away, to
34
vanish. Indeed, the verb may be used of that goes away or is taken away or is removed. The implied
contrast with the preceding earthly political kingdoms is clear. For, it is these earthly political powers that
are routinely ‫הדע‬/removed by Yahweh at the time He chooses [2:21; 4:31; 5:20; 7:12, 26].
The contemporary reader, as well as the original readers, may take courage from these words in
Daniel. To be sure, instability is a hallmark of modern political life. As in the ANE in the time of Daniel,
so now, political leaders do rule by fear and intimidation. But, these human tactics are not the end of the
story. Rather, the final victory is and will be with God who establishes, with the son of man, a realm, a
kingdom that is permanent. This kingdom will neither vanish nor be taken away by forces beyond its
control. Rather, this kingdom is perpetual and will exist through eternity.
7:14d This sentence affirms the eternalness of the kingdom this son of man is granted. The passage says
– his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. The operative term is never be destroyed.152 The
verb implies the stability of this new kingdom. In contrast to the demonstrated instability of the kingdoms
of man as noted in chapter two with the four kingdoms replacing one after another, this new kingdom exists
eternally.
Summary on the son of man. The context for the son of man material is 7:13-14. This passage
lays out his nature, his role, and the nature of his kingdom.
His nature. Daniel 7:13 portrays the nature of the son of man as divine in origin. Daniel 7:13b
affirms that one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven. As we noted at the time,
coming with the clouds is code for the divine origin of this personage.
At the same time, the simile – one like a son of man – also signals an element of humanity in this
personage. The use of the Aramaic phrase – ‫ – שנא רב‬elsewhere in Daniel implies humanity [2:38; 5:21].
Moreover, the most prominent Hebrew cognate phrase – ‫ – םדא ינב‬is used predominantly as a cipher for
humanity. In contrast to the human leaders up to this point in Daniel, all of whom are called beasts, this
one like a son of man possesses a humaneness that the former do not.
His role. In Daniel 7:13c-d, the son of man is brought before ancient of days. As noted at the
time, before him, they brought him near is language of a royal audience. This son of man will be
invested as a king. In general terms, the role of the son of man is one of royal dominion.
Daniel 7:14a signals the first of many contrasts with the preceding human, political/military,
leaders. Daniel 7:14a affirms that the son of man was given royal power. The verb was given is used
routinely in chapters 1-6 of Yahweh who gives dominion to human leaders, only to have that dominion
removed. The contrast in this case is that one of divine origin is given royal dominion that will ultimately
be absolute.
The role of the son of man is most fully teased out in the nouns of 7:14a – dominion, royal
honor, and a kingdom.
become invalid. The LXX translator uses an aorist passive of the verb  [to be taken (LSJ, 42)].
The verb appears nine times in Daniel [2:21; 3:27; 4:31; 5:20; 6:9, 13; 7:12, 14, 26]. ‫ הדע‬is used in
reference to Yahweh who ‫הדע‬/removes kings [2:21], who ‫הדע‬/removes the sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar
[4:31; 5:20], who ‫הדע‬/removes the dominion of the three beasts [7:12], and who ‫הדע‬/removes the dominion
of the small horn [7:26].
152
Never be destroyed glosses ‫[ לבחתת אל‬Hithpa’el, imperfect, 3rd, fs]. The verb may be glossed to
be destroyed, to perish [KB², 1868r; also BDB, 1091r]. The verb is used in Daniel 2:44 of a kingdom that
Yahweh sets up and that will never be destroyed. In 6:27, Darius affirms that the kingdom of Yahweh will
never be destroyed.
35
First, the role of the son of man is a role of dominion. The language for dominion is a power
term, implying one who both has power and uses it. The noun glossed dominion signals one who is
master of some realm; dominion means the possession and use of rule, mastery, supervision, and strength.
Moreover, this role of dominion is also transference of dominion from the human and political
and military sense of the term to the son of man. In Daniel 7:12, the fourth beast loses his dominion and in
7:14, the son of man is given dominion. The dominion exercised by humans is now in the hands of the son
of man.
Second, the role of the son of man is a role characterized by royal honor. The role of the son of
man is a role that is in the nature of things one of dignity, honor, and majesty. The son of man possesses
imperial honor, which is bestowed by ancient of days [Yahweh].
This function also represents transference. That is, royal honor in chapters 1-6 has been
bestowed upon human political/military leaders of a nation [2:37; 4:30, 36; 5:18, 20]. In this case, royal
honor is transferred from human politicians to the son of man. It is the son of man who is invested with
dignity and royal honor, esteemed in his role of lordship.
Third, the role of the son of man is to be the king of a kingdom. The noun kingdom implies that
the son of man has sovereign authority that he exercises over an organized and identifiable realm. The role
of the son of man thus involves rule and supremacy.
Once more, this involves transference. Not only is the sovereignty exercised by a political and
military leader bestowed by Yahweh [2:37-39; 4:17], it may also be removed by Yahweh [4:31-32]. In this
transference of sovereign authority, to the extent that the kingdom of the son of man is presented as eternal,
this transference is final.
The reader should also note a further nuance in the transference motif attached to kingdom. That
is, it is the kingdom that is given to both the son of man [7:14, 27b] and the saints of the Most High [7:18,
22, 27a]. The upshot is that the son of man and the saints of the Most High together are a new kingdom.
Fourth, the role of the son of man includes the reception of willing and obedient service from the
membership of the kingdom. Daniel 7:14b affirms that the purpose of his investiture with the trappings of
royal sovereignty is that every people, nation, and language, to him, would pay reverence.
His role in receiving willing and obedient service is universal and worldwide. All ethnic groups,
people, all ancestral groups, nation, and every language group will obediently serve him. The list is
inclusive and implies the organization of humanity around the figure of the son of man.
His role of receiving reverence implies both to be venerated and to be served. The contrast with
human, political and military, instantiations of power is clear. We noted, for example, that
Nebuchadnezzar held onto his kingdom and his power through fear and intimidation [5:19]. By contrast,
this new leader, the son of man, will be venerated and then willingly served. The net effect is that the role
of the son of man is to rule over a kingdom in which his followers are willing to do his bidding.
The nature of his kingdom. In essence, the nature of the kingdom of the son of man is
permanent and eternal. Both of these qualities of the kingdom of the son of man are in stark contrast to the
rise and fall of kingdoms in chapters 1-6.
First, we are told that his dominion is everlasting [7:14c]. Whatever else this means, the simple
fact is that the rule, the mastery, the strength, and the kingly supervision of his realm is permanent. In
contrast to the other human, political instantiations of dominion, everlasting is not in the nature of their
human dominion. This quality is unique to the dominion of the kingdom of the son of man.
36
As if to rhetorically underline the permanence of the dominion of the son of man, the visionary
reports that his dominion will never pass away. As noted at the time, the verb asserts that the dominion of
the son of man will not vanish, will not be taken away and will not be removed. In other words, the
dominion of the son of man is enduring.
Second, we are told that his kingdom will never be destroyed [7:14d]. The effects of his
dominion over his realm – his kingdom – will likewise never perish. In contrast to the instability of the
shifting fortunes of political power in chapters 1-6, here we have the promise of stability among human
beings through the aegis of the dominion of the son of man.
Overall, then, the son of man in the book of Daniel points to a royal and divine personage, whose
role is that of a king with royal dominion over a kingdom of willing followers. The son of man is a royal
figure, a ruling figure, and a divine figure.
With this in mind, it is difficult to read a Messianic nuance into the son of man as it appears in the
context of Daniel. While there may well be overlap in the nature of the Messiah and the son of man, the
role in Daniel focuses on his royal dominion over a kingdom of willing followers. The use of son of man
in Daniel seems to underline this royal role and pretty much leaves it there. The son of man terminology
avoids the Messianic overtones for Israel, appealing to a wider kingship for the son of man, “embracing all
men [emphasis mine] who acknowledged the authority of this son of man.”153 This last point concerning
the worldwide rule and reign of the son of man is surely underlined in the statement that every people,
nation, and language, to him, will pay reverence [7:14b].
Finally, we turn to the contribution of the passage in Mark 13 to the identity of the son of man.
The passage in Mark 13 shows us that the phrase – son of man – does not become a cipher for the Messiah
until Jesus Himself chooses it as His own self-designation.
The context of the Marcan use. The context of Jesus’ use of son of man in Mark 13:26 is a
question from four of Jesus’ disciples concerning a sign concerning the events that indicate the End of
human history [Mark 13:4]. Jesus responds by offering three responses; the first, Mark 13:5-13 and 13:14-
23, concerns earthly events between the Resurrection and the End. The second response, Mark 13:24-27,
concerns the cosmic events that portend the End. And, the third response, Mark 13:28-31 and 13:32-37, is
an exhortation concerning how to behave until the End, emphasizing spiritual vigilance.
The son of man language comes in the second response, that concerning the cosmic events that
signal the End. The evidence for viewing Mark 13:24-27 as about the End is based upon the use of Old
Testament passages that recall each of the cosmic events mentioned in Mark 13:24-27. The sun being
darkened recalls Isaiah 34:10, which is a Day of the Lord passage, signaling the final judgment of Yahweh
on the nations and sinners. The same may be said of the background for the next cosmic event – the moon
will not give its light – that is based on Isaiah 13:10, another Day of the Lord passage. The third cosmic
event – the stars will be falling from the heavens – is also taken from the Isaiah 34 passage. The last
cosmic event mentioned by Jesus – the powers in heaven will be violently shaken – comes from Joel 2:10,
yet another Day of the Lord passage. Indeed, the Joel 2:10 passage is bracketed before and after by a
reference to the Day of the Lord. The net effect is that all of the Old Testament citations used by Jesus in
Mark 13:24-27 indicate that the Day of the Lord as the final verdict on humanity informs the context of
Mark 13:26.
The son of man as a designation of Jesus’ deity. Investigation of Mark’s use of   
 indicates that the phrase is used of Jesus’ deity. In Mark 2:10, the son of man has authority to
forgive sins; in 2:11, the son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath; and in 14:62, the son of man is viewed as
sitting at the right hand of power.
153
Baldwin, 151.
37
In this regard, the son of man as a cipher for Jesus’ deity does accord with the use of ‫ שנא רב‬in
Daniel 7:13b, which underscores his divine origin. However, the use of    
elsewhere in Mark underlines a special significance for the phrase.
The son of man as a designation of Jesus’ destiny. The reader of Mark’s use of   
 elsewhere in his Gospel is immediately impressed by how often Mark fills   
 with references to Jesus’ Cross and Resurrection [Mark 8:31 (the Cross); 9:9 (the
Resurrection), 12 (suffering), 31 (Cross and Resurrection); 10:33 (Cross and Resurrection), 45 (to serve as
a ransom); 14:21, 41 (betrayal and suffering)].
It is also clear that Mark teases out     further in terms of judgment. It is
the crucified and resurrected Lord who is destined to return as     in judgment
[Mark 8:38; 14:62].
The net effect is that, in Mark,     is a self-designation that Jesus chooses
to highlight His Cross, His Resurrection and His role in judgment. The question is: why does Jesus choose
this self-designation? To answer this question, the reader is referred to Mark 8:29-31. It is in this context
that Jesus uses     in a Messianic sense.
In Mark 8:29, Peter makes the famous confession concerning Jesus – You are the Christ. Jesus
immediately warns all of them to say nothing about His being  , and then proceeds to teach them
that the son of man must suffer many things, be rejected, killed, and, after three days, rise again [Mark
8:31]. As noted above, while Jesus does equate the Messiah -   - with the son of man -  
  - He is reluctant to use the typical Messianic term due to the mistaken theology of the day
concerning the Messiah. Thus, Jesus chooses a self-designation that is Messianic, but which He uses to fill
with content concerning His destiny – the Cross and Resurrection.
At another level, the connection between son of man/‫ שנא רב‬in Daniel 7:13 and son of man/
   in Mark 13:26 should be noted. That is the role in Daniel 7:13-14 of the son of man
is a royal role, filled with dominion, royal honor, and a kingdom. In Mark 13:26, Jesus chooses son of
man/‫ שנא רב‬as a self-designation that He defines His sense of royalty in terms of the Cross and
Resurrection. As pointed out at the time, there is nothing in the uses of the various phrases in the Old
Testament translated son of man that even remotely link the phrase with suffering, death, and resurrection;
Jesus Himself makes these connections. The net effect is this: the royal honor of the son of man leads to
a Cross and an empty tomb for the forgiveness of sins for all mankind.
Accordingly, the son of man language in Daniel is a royal and kingly designation; it is not
explicitly Messianic until Jesus makes it so in Mark 13.
38

The Beast in Daniel 7 and The Son of Man

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Beast in Daniel 7 and The Son of Man

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fourth Beast and the Son of Man in Daniel 7 Loren Lineberry, 2010

Daniel 7:7-14 – The Forth Beast

The emergence of four great beasts – 7:2-8

Mark 13:19 Daniel 12:1

Mark 13:24 Isaiah 13:10

Mark 13:24 Isaiah 13:10

Mark 13:25 Isaiah 34:4

Mark 13:25 Joel 2:10

You might also like