The Beast in Daniel 7 and the Son of Man

8/9/2019 The Beast in Daniel 7 and the Son of Man

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-beast-in-daniel-7-and-the-son-of-man 1/38

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

1

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 notonly 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 beable to produce. Moreover, the use of the passive participle to express this fear implies that this beast istypically regarded with fear.

Terrible is an adjective that may be more or less parallel with the preceding participle. Theadjective points to a characteristic of the beast as frightful ,3 as terrible,4 or as what is dreadful .5

1 All translations are the authors. The principle abbreviations are these: KB¹ and KB² arereferences 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 toFrancis 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); JamesA. 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: TheSoncino 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 andPontus 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 [Pe¶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 experienceamounting to fear, alarm [4:2], and fear and trembling [5:19]. The LXX translator uses , anadjective 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].

3 Rosenthal § 57.

4 KB², 1811r ; BDB, 1080r .




2

The description of this fourth beast as exceedingly strong continues the description of thecapabilities 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 ableto contend with [Ecclesiastes 6:10].7 Overall, then, this adjective describes the power and force this beastis capable of mustering.

7:7c with two rows of large, iron teeth continues the imagery.8 While the Aramaic noun occurs onlyin chapter 7, its Hebrew cognate is fairly common in metaphors of angry and aggressive behavior. As withthe 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 stressthe 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 ± ±is 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 whoconsumes 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. Theimagery 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 lesscrushes an enemy into dust .

5 See Van Pelt and Kaiser, ³ ,´ in NIDOTTE . The LXX translator uses , an adjectivethat may be glossed amazed, astounded or terrible [LSJ, 506].

6 Robert H. O¶Connell, ³,´ in NIDOTTE . The LXX translator uses , an adjective thatsuggests personal strength, that which is powerful, forcible, violent, severe [LSJ, 843].

7 Ibid.

8 The noun glossed teeth ± [noun, fm, dual] ± signals, through the dual ± two rows of teeth [Rosenthal § 59]. The Hebrew cognate of this noun ± ± is used figuratively in the Hebrew Bible of theteeth 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 thewicked [Psalm 35:16; 37:17; 57:5; Prov 30:14].

9 Devouring glosses the participle ± [Pe¶al, fm, sg]. For the ongoing or characteristic aspectof 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 ± ± is used in a figurative

sense of to devour, to slay, to consume, to destroy [BDB, 37].10 Crushing glosses the participle ± [Haph¶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 acontext of the ultimate victory of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of men [2:34, 35, 44, 45]; [2] in acontext that describes a terrible death of persons [6:25]; and in a context of the power of nations to destroytheir opponents [2:40; 7:7, 19, 23]. The Akkadian cognate ± daqqu ± may give us a window onto thesense of the verb, since this term points to what is fine [KB², 1855].




3

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 kingdomuses 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 isthat 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 containedin the figure? To begin with, the horn is a symbol of strength.14 As used in the Psalms, the horn is thestrength 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 Pe¶al, participle, fm, sg] [prepositional phrase, using prefixed to a noun, fm, pl, construct with a 3rd, fs, suffix] [noun, ms, sg, determined].The literal word order yields the gloss ± the rest under its feet trampling . The first noun ± ± may beglossed 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 abstractnoun and glosses rest, remainder . Goldingay, 142, glosses trampling under foot what was left . The verb ± ± is used in Daniel only in reference to the trampling activities of this fourth beast [7:7, 19]. Thecollocation ± to trample under foot [ ] only appears in the Hebrew Bible in two passages [Ezekiel32:2; 34:18]. Both of the Ezekiel texts suggest defiance and a definite lack of care for the objects of thetrampling. 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 [Pa¶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 ± ± that 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 ± ± and there is also a Hebrew cognate ± . TheAramaic 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 musicalinstruments [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 theuse 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 /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].




4

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 Theupshot is that the reference to ten horns signifies a level of power, especially the power to attack, which iscomplete. Joyce Baldwin notes ³Ten horns, five times the natural two, represents pictorially theextraordinary 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 wehave noted below, the /horn is often used in the prophetic literature of the power to gore and destroy anopponent. The net effect is that the reader should attend to this aspect of the imagery; we have here a beastthat 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 betweenverse 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 ± thereader may intuit some general referent in the ten horns to an empire as a whole, out of which ten kingsarise, 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 isdescribed 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 takecenter 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, ³,´ 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 intuita 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 moregeneral form of this last view is that the ten horns refer to Greek kings, though which Greek kings Danielhas in view is not certain nor especially relevant [Goldingay, 187].

19 Contemplating glosses [Hithpa¶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 . The verb in the sentence ± [Pe¶al, perfect, 3rd,fm, sg] ± may be glossed to come up, to go up [KB², 1938r ]. The verb has an ANE background, includingan Arabic root ± slq ± to ascend, to mount, to climb, to scale [KB², 1938]; there is also a Babyloniancognate ± salqu ± that signals to climb up [KB², 1938].




5

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 toemphasize 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. Thesentence 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 thestem 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 thissmall horn.

21 Between them translates [preposition, , 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 ± ± the sense appears to be locative, pointing out that the smaller horn emerged among or amid theothers [IBHS 11.2.6b].

22 The adjective ± [adjective, 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. TheHebrew cognate ± ± is found within a semantic field for terms that represent what is ³little, trifle,insignificant,´ [see ³Little, 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 pertainingto the beginnings of papal rule in Rome. Young, 149, affirms that the reference serves to focus attention onthe eyes and mouth, which are the focal point of this beast. There are those who see in this smaller horn asthe ruler who is to come of 9:26, the abomination of 12:11, and the beast coming out of the sea inRevelation113:1-10. 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 nolinguistic cues to these identifications or citations in either Revelation or Thessalonians to support them.

24 Were rooted up translates [Ithpa¶el, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl]. The stem used here may be readas 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 , tobe plucked out . This is the only appearance of the root in the Aramaic; the Hebrew cognate ± ± is usedseven 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 wouldregard as calamitous, are in the sovereign control of Yahweh. The ³times´ listed in the catalogue are God¶s

times; they are most definitely not man¶s.




6

The reader needs to appreciate what is being communicated here about God. Yahweh isinstrumental in the ascendancy of this small horn on the scene in the Ancient Near East. As Goldingay

points out, God ³clears the way for the small horn by removing three others.´25

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 simileof 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 /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

andintentions.31 In its context, there more negative mental qualities could well be in play here. As Goldingaynotes, the eyes reveal ³a 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. Oncemore, we have a noun ± /mouth ± that has a Hebrew cognate used in a figurative sense. The /mouth inthe 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

25 Goldingay, 164.

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.




7

catalogue of verbal vices fits in well with the context. In this case, we have boastful speech as indicated byspeaking great boasts.42

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. Thesense of the adjective ± great boasts ± seems to point to bragging speech, boastful speech, or possiblyblasphemous speech. Bauer-Leander opts for insolent speech, as does Holladay.43 Rosenthal simplytranslates big words.44 The sense of the adjective glossed here simply posits the boastful or possibly theinsolent 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 ± / speak ± of the blasphemous speech of this small horn. While the reader maysimply understand here a man who makes impressive pronouncements, ultimately, his speech will take on amore draconian hue.

The simile of the man invites the question whether or not a human is being lifted out here. IsDaniel hinting at some specific person? Some writers affirm that the small horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, aview that is based on the fuller explanation of the small horn in 7:25, an explanation that does historicallyfit the acts of Antiochus.45 Others see the small horn as a reference to the Antichrist .46 For now, judgmentson 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 ± 7:2-8The turning point: judgment ± 7:9-10

The reversal of fortunes for the four great beasts ± 7:11-12Dominion granted to one like a son of man ± 7:13-14

41 Proverbs 26:28.

42

Speaking glosses a participle ± [Pa¶el, participle, ms, sg] ± and great boasts glosses asingle adjective ± [adjective, fm, pl]. For the gloss of the entire participial phrase as communicatingsome 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 thatthis gloss fits best in light of 7:25, referencing the hostile/blasphemous speech of this small horn. The LXXglosses with the adjective ± ± 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 thesense being pride and presumption in his speech. Goldingay, 142, glosses making great statements in thesense 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 generalway as those who are opposed to God]; Hagee, 176.

47 See the notes on 7:2, page 3.




8

Daniel reports that he kept on looking in his vision as thrones were set up.48 The reader shouldattend to the nuance of the grammar/syntax of the conjunction with the perfect tense of the verb. It is notlikely that some kind of futurity is implied; this is an over-reading of the English conjunction normally usedin 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 ³has 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 itseems 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 theground] all indicate activities on earth. 7:9 maintains continuity with this earthly perspective when Danielsays ± I continued looking as thrones were set up. The perspective in 7:9a seems yet to be earthly.

The Aramaic noun translated thrones ± ± is used only in Daniel 5:20 and 7:9. In the firstuse, /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 histenure as king, for his overweening pride. So here, it would seem that this fourth beast is to be judged inthe 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 beastrepresents, 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 institutionsdo 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 areunder 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

48 As thrones were set up glosses . functions as a conjunction with the perfect[KB², 1943r ; Rosenthal § 86; Bauer-Leander § 70 v]. It might be noted that the conjunction ± ± isused with a perfect tense verb ± [Pe¶il, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl]. The use of the conjunction with the perfectwould 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 ± [noun, 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, ³,´ in NIDOTTE ]. The Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic noun ± ± appears frequently in reference to thethrone of Yahweh [Psalm 9:5 (the place from which Yahweh judges righteously), 8; 11:4 (the place fromwhich Yahweh tests the sons of men; where implies to scrutinize, to assay); 47:9 (the place from whichYahweh 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 inIsaiah 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 that underline the permanent or perpetual nature of the throne of Yahweh [Psalm9:8; 45:7; 889:4, 14, 30, 36; 93:2; 132:12].




9

audience, suffer under the cruel tyranny of despotic political leadership. God both scrutinizes suchleadership and reserves the right to act accordingly.

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 ± ± appears in the Aramaic Bible only in Daniel 7 [7:9, 13, 22].51 There isno grammatical reason for capitalizing these words; the gloss could just as easily be ancient of days. Theuse 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 /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 andvenerable.53 Accordingly, the one who was seated upon this throne is one who is august, esteemed , andrevered .

7:9c-d These sentences describe the appearance of the venerable personage on the seat of the throne. Hisclothing is depicted as like snow, white and the hair of his head [was] like wool, pure.

The noun glossed clothing ± ± simply refers to the garments the person was wearing.54 TheHebrew cognate of the Aramaic noun appears only once in reference to the garments of a divine figure. InIsaiah 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 ± [adjective, ms, sg, construct (see BDB, 1108 for theform in the construct)] ± modifying a noun ± [noun, ms, pl]. The adjective ± ± may be glossed old,

aged [KB², 1955r ]; one advanced, aged, in days [BDB, 1108r ]; Holladay, 417r , simply goes with old,aged . The LXX translator uses , an adjective [of old date, ancient (LSJ, 1290r )]. There areHebrew cognates, two forms being adjectives ± [used only in Proverbs 8:18 in reference to eminent or

surpassing wealth, or more than likely ± enduring wealth] and [removed, old used in 1 Chronicles 4:22and Isaiah 28:9]. The noun glossed days ± ± is 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 adjectivenor the noun is made definite, thus the translation the ancient of days is really an interpretation. Twotranslations, those of Baldwin and Goldingay, gloss so as to point out the great age of the one on thethrone; 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 sittingon the throne. The use of the genitive - [adjective, ms, sg, construct (see BDB, 1108 for the form inthe construct)] ± modifying a noun ± [noun, 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 judgmentwith comfort, vengeance and judgment in Isaiah 63:1-6. In this context, the Hebrew cognate of theAramaic noun ± ± is used of the red garments of the Anointed One in judgment [Isaiah 63:2].

55 Like snow, white glosses [adjective, ms, sg] [preposition, , prefixed to a noun, ms, sg].The prepositional phrase ± ± refers simply to snow [KB², 2006r ], used only here in Daniel. TheHebrew cognate ± ± is used in passages that suggest purity [Psalm 51:7; Isaiah 1:18]. The adjective ±




10

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 imageryunderlines the moral and spiritual qualifications for this personage to make these judgments. The person iseminently 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 Danielreferencing the judgment on the three young Hebrew lads. At the same time, the imagery of / fire or light is really not all that far removed from Yahweh as /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 Hebrewterms as , , and are 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 thecase that both aflame and fire are used in Daniel in reference to the punishment/judgment of the threeHebrews, neither term is explicitly used of the judgment of God. Moreover, the use of the Hebrew cognatefor 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¶sdeeds provide their own illumination ± and judgment.

7:9f The clause carries forward the description of the throne ± its wheels [were] a burning fire. The3rd, masculine, singular suffix ± its ± has as its antecedent the 3rd, masculine, singular, noun ± throne.

[adjective, ms, sg] ± may be glossed white, and is used only here in the Aramaic. The Hebrew cognate ± ± is used in Esther 8:15 to describe the appearance of royal robes.

56 Like wool, pure glosses [adjective, ms, sg] [preposition, , prefixed to a noun, ms, sg].As we have noted before, is 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 ± ± is usedin 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 clarifiedwith the adjective ± ± pure. The adjective appears only here in the Aramaic portion of the HB. TheAramaic adjective may be glossed clean, pure [KB², 1933r ]. The Akkadian cognate ± nq ± also points towhat is clean, pure [KB², 1933]. The adjective in neither Aramaic nor Hebrew is used in reference to adivine personage. The Hebrew cognate ± ± describes what is clean or free from guilt , and is used in

parallel with in Exodus 23:7 [BDB, 667].

57 Aflame with fire renders . The noun glossed aflame ± [noun, ms, pl] ± wasoriginally 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 ± [noun, ms, sg] ± may be glossed fire [KB², 1929r ]. In Akkadian [nru]and Arabic [nr ], both mean light [KB², 1929]. The Hebrew cognate is , 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 tothe punishment of the three Jews in the blazing fire. In 2 Samuel 22:29 [Psalm 18:29], David refers toYahweh as his /light ; similarly, Job 29:3. Accordingly, there is precedent for using /light in referenceto God. The semantic field from which this noun is drawn includes words for light, lamp, lampstand [see³Lamp´ and ³Light´ in NIDOTTE ].




11

The noun glossed wheels ± ± is used only here in Daniel and is simply translated wheel.58 Themention 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 iscompressed to denote ³the irresistibility of the divine energy.´60 This fourth beast will ultimately be givenover to a burning fire ± ± and the visionary uses a different noun for fire ± . The Hebrewcognate 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 withthe movement of the river-fire ± flowing and coming forth from him. Both verbs are participles.62 Thefirst 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.

It is said that these were serving the ancient of days.65 It seems that has a general sense of to serve someone as master . Moreover, the stem of the verb implies passion in the manner of the service.

58 [noun, ms, sg, construct] is translated wheel [KB², 1845r ]. The Hebrew cognate ± ± isused 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 ± . The construction is a genitive, using a noun ± [noun, ms,sg] ± followed by the genitive construction ± [the genitive marker ± ± followed by the noun, [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 theAramaic 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 and coming forth renders . The participles probably function as anarrative tense [Rosenthal § 177]. The first participle ± ± suggests 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 ± ± to go out, to come forth, to issue from [KB², 1932r ].

63 From before Him glosses , an expression that probably carries spatial significance ± out

of, from, from before (the presence of) [KB², 1967r ].

64 may be glossed many thousands [KB², 1815r ], also Holladay, 397r , and Bauer-Leander § 89 i.

65 Were serving glosses [Pa¶el, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl, with a 3rd, ms, sg, suffix]. This is theonly use of this verb in the Aramaic section of the HB. The term may be glossed ± to serve. In Syriac, the

amm is a servant ; the Egyptian cognate ± my ± also points to one who follows or serves. The LXX




12

Goldingay¶s remark that these are ³God¶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 ± athousand times ten thousand before him were standing. The verb glossed were standing ± ± islike the preceding verb in terms of stem function, that is, there is eagerness attached to the action of theverb. 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 atribunal or a judicial assembly. When the noun is used of the work of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, demonstrates an interest in maintaining justice for the oppressed [Psalms 9:5; 140:13; Proverbs 29:7]. Thenoun 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 isused 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 verbimplies 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 simpleevent in the past . Accordingly, to note, as John Walvoord does, that we have here ³a vision of heaven atthe time of final judgment on the nations´ is simply a misread of the aspect of the verb.69 What we havehere is a lifting of the veil whereby we are permitted to watch while God oversees His universe. Suchscenes are found elsewhere in the Old Testament [2 Kings 22:15-20; Job 1-2; Isaiah 6]. As we shall see

translator uses [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 . The noun glossed court ± [noun, ms, sg,determined] ± is followed by the verb ± [Pe¶al, perfect, 3rd, ms]. The noun translated court ± ± implies a judicial assembly [KB², 1852r ]; Holladay, 402r , opts for council of judges. The LXX translator use [court of judgment, tribunal (LSJ, 997)]. The Hebrew cognate ± ± is used of Yahweh asHe judges righteously // maintaining a just cause [Psalm 9:5; 140:13; Proverbs 29:7]; the noun is also usedof 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 ± [Pe¶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 ± dayyn

± in terms of to sit in judgment [KB², 1895]. The Hebrew cognate ± ± is 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 ahistorical perfect or a simple narrative tense in simply describing what for the speaker was a simple pastevent [Bauer-Leander § 79 h-i].

69 Walvoord, 163.




13

directly, we are not dealing with the final judgment and end of human history in Daniel 7, since kingdomswith 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 arrangesthe boasting of the small horn ± Daniel 7:8 and 7:11. In the very midst of this boasting, the court of heaventakes note and takes action. As John Goldingay writes, ³Even 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 Godis neither absent, nor asleep, nor uninvolved in dealing with those nations that set themselves in oppositionto Him.

Finally, we are told that books were opened. The noun translated books ± ± may be read asa record book .71 In this line, the content of the books is not made clear. Given the setting of 7:9-10between the boisterous and boastful goings on of the small horn, one would surmise that the content of thebooks includes the deeds for which this small horn will suffer judgment [7:11], along with the others whowere 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 69:29mentions 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 thosewho are written in the book as those who fear Yahweh and esteem His name. On the whole, then, thebooks 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, theinsolent 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 threeinitial beasts remain on the scene, 7:12b, but with reduced power. Their deeds, for which they suffer theloss 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 theleopard.

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].

70 Goldingay, 189.

71 is glossed book, record book [KB², 1939r ]; the Arabic cognate ± sifr ± simply points to abook ; the Akkadian cognate ± ipru ± 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 thedeeds of man in a book [Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm 69:29; Isaiah 4:3; Daniel 12:1; Malachi 3:16]. TheExodus 32 passage implies that sin is just cause for removal from the Book that Yahweh has written. In thiscontext, the book would appear to be a record of those who had been, at one time, loyal to Yahweh. ThePsalm 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, andleading many to righteousness, are those who are written in the book . Finally, the Malachi 3:16 passagetells us that those who are written in the book are those who [1] fear Yahweh and [2] esteem His name.




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 beimmediately 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 thatis used points to a past action from the standpoint of the reporter of the vision. In order to capture thecontinuity 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 offeredfor 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 theadjective ± 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 Thesense of the adjective glossed here simply posits the boastful or possibly the insolent speech of this smallhorn. It should be noted that in 7:25, the same verb, used here as a participle, is used as a finite verb ±

/ speak ± of the blasphemous speech of this small horn. While the reader may simply understand here aman who makes impressive pronouncements, ultimately, his speech will take on a more draconian hue. Itwould be difficult, in this context, not to understand some reference to the blasphemous speech of thissmall 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.

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.

72 Thereupon glosses the Aramaic adverb , with a preposition, , prefixed. The adverb may

be glossed then [KB², 1807r ], Rosenthal § 89, Bauer-Leander § 68 a ± immediately.

73 I kept on watching glosses . The construction front loads a participle ± [Pe¶al, participle, ms, sg] ± followed by a finite verb ± [Pe¶al, perfect, 1st, cs]. The construction may be usedto 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 ± ± indicates 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.

77 Until the beast was slain glosses . The temporal marker ± ± may beglossed, when used with the imperfect, until [KB², 1943r ; Bauer-Leander § 70 v; Rosenthal § 86]. Theobject of the verb ± [noun, 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 on7:2. The action taken upon this beast is that he was slain ± [Pe¶il, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg] ± implies thatthe beast was acted upon since the stem may be read as a passive [Bauer-Leander § 32 e

¡

]. The agent is notexplicitly stated, but the immediate context, 7:9-10, suggests a Divine agency . The aspect of the perfect is




15

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, ³The mighty tyrantwho mocks and blasphemes Almighty God and who crushes and kills God¶s people will himself beconsumed.´78

The reader might well wonder at the apparent equation between the boastful words of the horn in7:11b and then the outcome ± the beast was slain. The visionary would seem to be making the point thatthe entire regime ± the fourth beast [Daniel 7:7] from which the small horn emerged [Daniel 7:8] ± wasutterly consumed. This is Slotki¶s take on the reference to the beast, writing that the beast refers to ³theempire 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 thatits stem is the passive of the causative of the idea of the verbal root. As we have been noting, anunidentified agency is sovereign over the lives of these beasts, including this fourth one. As Joyce Baldwinremarks, ³The 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 burningfire.82 As we have already observed in this passage, the passive nuance of the verbal stem is once moreused. 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

probably again of the completed action variety, whereby the speaker simply posits the action of killing as afact. The verb itself ± ± may 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 . The introductory waw may be of the explanatory variety [Bauer-Leander § 70 r]. The verb ± [Hophal, 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 ± [noun, 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 HebrewBible 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 . 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 specifyingfactor in the judgment/death of this fourth beast [see Bauer-Leander § 71 r]. The verb ± [Pe¶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 preposition, , 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 thatwas given over to the Medes and the Persians by Yahweh; in Daniel 7:12, the verb is used to affirm that thedominion of the remaining three beasts is taken away/removed .




16

Belshazzar is given over to the Medes and the Persians. Then, in the next verse in our passage, 7:12, thedominion 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 onDaniel 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 misplacedhint 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 / fire in the poets and the prophets is a general figure for the destructive wrath of God . Whenthe idea of / fire as a figure for the destructive wrath of God is added to the insight from the previousclause ± the use of /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 themeans by which Yahweh removes a political leader when Yahweh is finished with that leader. As notedabove, 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, sincethe remaining three beasts have their dominion reduced but their realms continue to function. The linereads ± 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 notreally 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 glosseddominion ± ± implies dominion, might, power , or even empire. This concept of /dominion

83 See Montgomery, 301, for an overview; Walvoord, 165.

84 A burning fire glosses the genitive construction ± . The lead noun ± [noun, fm, sg,construct] ± is followed by [noun, fm, sg]. It may be best to read the genitive along the lines of the

subjective genitive, where the genitive term ± ± does the action described by the lead noun ± . Thesense of the subjective genitive can have a possessive or qualitative structure, yielding burning by fire [IBHS, 9.5.1b; also RSV]. The lead noun ± ± is used only here in the Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible.The genitive noun ± ± does 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./ fire is a common metaphor of the destructive wrath of Yahweh [Psalm 11:6; 18:9; 21:10; 80:17; Isaiah9:18; 29:6; 30:33 among others]. Cross-references in many English translations that link this line in Daniel7:11 with Revelation 19:20 and 20:10 really do not work. It is better to view Revelation 19:20 with Isaiah30:33, since both contain the mention of brimstone. The same may be said of the Revelation 20:10, sinceIsaiah 30:33, as well as Psalm 11:6 and Ezekiel 38:22, all mention / fire along with brimstone.

85 See Russell, Daniel , 121; Goldingay, 166.

86 Their dominion was removed translates . The verb in the line ± [Haph¶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 inDaniel 2:21 in the same stem to affirm that Yahweh chooses the time to remove kingdoms. The noun in the7:12a ± [noun, 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 /remove in 2:21, isfound within the same semantic field as the noun that is used ± /kings [³Kingship, dominion, kingdom,




17

figures large in the book of Daniel. To begin with, /dominion is within the same semantic field asthe 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, /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 /dominion of Yahweh is

both beyond destruction and eternal. Finally, the last uses of /dominion in the book of Daniel comein Daniel 7. In 7:12a, is 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 isthe sovereign Lord of history and 7:12 is proof positive of that divine sovereignty. Moreover, /dominion, in the sense of power, might, and rule, belongs to Yahweh alone. He places it where Hewants it and removes it when He chooses to confiscate it. Finally, it would appear that Daniel 7 affirms a

place for /dominion that ultimately leads to and concludes with one like a son of man and the saintsof the Most High. Whatever else this may imply, it seems virtually certain that /dominion is not ultimately reserved for the political classes of society. To be sure, Daniel has already noted that a daywould come, in the time of those kings, when the G od 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, thoughreduced 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 lastsdays of all human life.

This lengthening of life was given to them, again using language that signals an agent behind the

giving.88

The temporal marker ± for a time and a season ± would seem to signal a future that is ultimatelylimited. 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.

rule, supervision,´ in NIDOTTE ]. The notion of /dominion plays a key role in the theology of Daniel. As noted in Daniel 4:3, Nebuchadnezzar, possibly with Daniel¶s help, acknowledges that paganand pious together will acknowledge the /dominion of Yahweh. In Daniel 6, Darius acknowledgesthat the /dominion of Yahweh is both beyond destruction and eternal [6:27]. Finally, as we shallsoon see, this /dominion is taken from these beasts/kingdoms [7:12a], will be turned over to one likea 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 ± [noun, fm, sg] ± may be glossed length of time, prolongation [KB², 1825r ]; also BDB, 1022r , andHolladay, 398r . The prepositional phrase ± ± uses a noun that simply points to life [KB², 1874r ].

88 Was given to them glosses . The line is a verb followed by a prepositional phrase. Theverb ± [Pe¶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£

.




18

As we noted at the time, the times and epochs of Daniel 2:21 imply changing times and epochs.89 The first noun ± ± may be glossed a fixed time, or a period of time,90 a specifically fixed time. Thefirst noun indicates a set time. The sense of the term is that time, including the events within time, areshaped by God. In the next line, this notion will be specified in terms of the rise and fall of politicians andworld 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 are thespecified 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 ± ± For everything - a

time. Whatever else one wants to affirm about Qoheleth¶s and Daniel¶s use of times and epochs, one thingis 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 Interms 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, ³Koheleth begins with noting anaccepted 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 anextension of life for a set period of time in order to bring about, in due season, events that are right andtimely 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. Theopening 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 onlytime the noun clouds ± ± is found in the Aramaic section of the Hebrew Bible.94 The cloud in theHebrew Bible is a metaphor of Yahweh¶s nearness and His presence. Whatever else is implied here, thedivine origin of this seems obvious with this imagery.

89Times and epochs glosses [noun, ms, pl, determined] [noun, ms, pl, determined]. The

first noun ± ± is an expression of time and may be glossed time [KB², 1944r ]; BDB, 1105r , suggeststhat perhaps this noun is an Assyrian cognate that points to a fixed, appointed, or determined time. If thislast 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.

91John 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.

93Robert Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 228.

94 There is a Hebrew cognate ± ± that does have some bearing on the Aramaic cognate as usedin this context. That is, /cloud is used as a metaphor of Yahweh¶s presence and nearness. Occasionally,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 inrighteousness and justice/judgment [Psalm 97:2; Ezekiel 30:3 (a time of doom for all nations)].




19

The key claim in this sentence concerns [one] like a son of man. The Aramaic uses ± .95 To begin with, the reader should note that we are once again in the realm of simile. The simile, as we havenoted before, is a kind of comparison. The simile says, in effect, ³A 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. Thecollocation we have here ± ± may be glossed a man, or one of human kind . This collocation ± ± is used in the plural in Daniel 2:38 in a reference to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar that extends wherever the dwell. The collocation is also used in the plural in Daniel 5:21, when Nebuchadnezzar is drivenaway from , mankind . The upshot is that in its appearances in Daniel, has a human referent.

95 This exact collocation ± ± occurs 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 suggestshumanity. Moreover, when the lead noun ± ± is used with another noun within a range of two lexemes,

we get the following: [1] (the sons of the exile), 2:25; 5:13; 6:14; [2] (a son of a god ),3:25; [3] (a son of sixty two years), 6:1. Once we turn from the Aramaic of Daniel tocollocations in the Hebrew Bible, restricting ourselves to the Psalter and the Prophets, we get additionalresults. The collocation ± ( son of man) ± is used in Psalm 4:3 and Lamentations 3:33 in reference tohumanity. The collocation ± ( son of man) ± is far more prevalent. is used in the sense of ahuman 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 - ± is also found in Isaiah in references to humanity; seeIsaiah 57:12; 52:14; 56:2. The same may be said for the use of in Jeremiah 32:19; 49:18, 33; 50:40;51:43. The use of in Ezekiel is almost uniformly a designation for the prophet himself; Yahwehaddresses him as / 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, , is also used in Daniel 8:17 in reference to humanity;the same may be said for in Joel 1:12; Micah 5:6. Finally, is used in the sense of some sortof 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 ± ± like, once more suggesting a simile thatstresses some characteristic or trait. The characteristic must surely be the personage¶s humanity. Indeed,the collocation ± ± is used simply to refer to a man [KB², 1839r ; Holladay, 400r ]; BDB, 1085r , optsfor one of human kind . In Ezra 6:16, the collocation becomes , shorthand for Israelites; in Daniel2:25, the phrase is ± ± sons of the exile or simply exiles [also 5:13; 6:13]; finally, the onlycollocation that uses the Aramaism ± ± is Daniel 3:25, where Nebuchadnezzar peers into the blazingfurnace and sees , a son of a god .

Daniel uses a cognate expression ± / son of man ± in 8:17 in the sense of human being . Theuse of the same expression in 10:16 refers to a heavenly being in human form. The Hebrew Bible makesgenerous use of / 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 )].

96 Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 166.




20

When we look for other collocations that use the lead noun / son with some other term, we get both human and divine references. Daniel mentions (the sons of the exile) and (a son of sixty two years), both relate to some human orientation. The other use of / son is in terms of the (a son of a god ) Nebuchadnezzar saw in the blazing furnace alongside the three Jews. Theseobservations lead to the conclusion that / 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 . This collocation isinfrequent in the Old Testament and is used in human terms.97

The third way the Hebrew Bible represents son of man is . The collocation appears in thePsalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, and Micah. In these books, is used of humanity,mankind , or some general reference to a human being . It is the case that also is used to point tosome kind of divine or heavenly personage in Psalm 80:17 and Daniel 10:16. However, the preponderanceof uses of is in human terms.

It may be well to reflect for a moment on what we already have before delving more deeply intothis 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 useddescribe kingdoms that are rapacious, violent, and powerful. We have had a kingdom like a lion-eagle; wehave 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 onelike a human being. The net effect is that the reader may intuit a contrast in leadership and style with thismore humane leader of the kingdom he will be given. But, what more needs to be said here in regard tothis 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 doesdeserve attention; that is, the writer of Daniel, as he has in previous similes, does not really intend a specificidentification to be made. Rather, ³Chapter 7 invites us to focus on the humanlike figure¶s role rather thanhis identity.´99

The matter of identification must take into account the use of / 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 awhole. More narrowly, Mark 13:26 is part of the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13:3-37. This discourse istriggered 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 movesPeter, James, John and Andrew to ask Jesus in 13:4 ± Tell us, when these things will be and what is the signwhen all these things are about to be completed?

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 isalluded to in Revelation 1:13; 14:14. The LXX has .

101 For purposes of understanding how the New Testament viewed the Daniel passage, we simplytake the Marcan account as basic. No attempt is made to reconcile the Synoptics with one another.




21

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. Thatis, the first use of these things ± û ± must back reference Jesus¶ remark about the destruction of theTemple. However, the second use, all these things ± û ± 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 û implies that the questioners saw the destruction of the Temple as ³part of a complex of eventsleading to the End.´102 Accordingly, these four ask for a definitive sign by which they may know that thedestruction 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 ± ò 103 infashioning His responses. We may assume that His use of ò means the time between His death andresurrection to the end of human history.

Having asked for the sign ± ò î ± Jesus proceeds in the remainder of the discourse to givethem 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 theEnd. The second response, Mark 13:24-27, concerns the cosmic event that proclaims the End. Finally, thethird 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 attendantwarning 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 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].

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 ò as the end of the cosmic drama, see Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt andWilbur 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, ò is part of a semantic domain of words for time, ò indicating ³a 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 [] that no one deceives you [] over the matter of a false Christ, 13:6. At the other end of thesection, false Christs and false prophets will come on the scene, 13:22, in order to deceive [];accordingly, the disciples are exhorted to beware []. 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 ± û ± uses a noun, , which is a figure of intense suffering and pain [Louw & Nida, 24. 87]. The fact that this intense suffering is but the beginningimplies that over the course of time from the Incarnation to the End, the level of intense suffering willincrease over time.




22

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 toendurance and faithfulness to the end of human history, whenever that may come. Moreover, the Gospelof 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 basicallyeradicate 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, Antiochussent 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 [1Macc 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 theOlympian Zeus [2 Macc 6:2]. According to 1 Macc 1:54, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon thealtar 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 carriesvery 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 thecontext 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 remainfaithful 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 eventsin history are repeated again and again, so that the ³new Israel like the old would be sinful and would againand again be menaced by divine judgment.´108 As we have noted often in Daniel, there are patterns inhistory, and crises in faith are one of them, especially the kind of crisis initiated by Antiochus and theabomination that desolates ± the eradication of faith from life.

106

What is normally translated the abomination of desolation is . Wetranslate ± 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 [that which

causes something to be defiled/abandoned (Louw & Nida, 53.38]. The quotation used by Mark comesfrom Daniel 12:11.

107 See also Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 256.

108 Cranfield, 404.




23

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 . Thelanguage in this verse is reminiscent of Daniel 12:1; note the comparison:

Mark 13:19 Daniel 12:1 î î î î

û û û û

The context of the Daniel 12 passage should once more be noted. That is, Daniel 12:1 opens witha 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 theHebrew of the Daniel 12:1 with the prepositional phrase ± /during that time ± where the

preposition, , 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 inthe 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 languagehere. That tribulation will exist is simply a fact of the Christian life, in the here-and-now and up to the veryend. Politicians like the Antiochus of Daniel foisted tribulation upon the faithful in his era, and he has hadmany successors. In fact, this verse in Mark indicates that the Antiochus-like figure will grow ever morevicious.

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 therighteous receive their just reward. Likewise in the Mark 13:20 passage, Jesus simply indicates that, whilethe tribulation will be endured, the time frame shall be less than it might have been.

The noun glossed tribulation ± î ± is a noun that simply signals direct suffering or moregenerally persecution.111 The noun is used in the sense of persecution for the faith fairly often in the NewTestament.112 Such is the meaning here; Jesus affirms that the believing community can expect intensethough 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); Acts11:19; 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; 1Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 1:9; 2:9, 10, 22; 7:14.




24

Summary. The question that was asked of Jesus was ± what is the sign or signs that signal theEnd 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, byrepeating at the beginning and the ending of the passage the same concerns. That is, the pericope opensand closes with a warning about false Christs with an exhortation to beware. The time frame for the eventslocated within this unit, 13:5-23, depicts the kinds of events that Christians will have to endure from theIncarnation to the End of time.

These events include: [1] false Messiahs, [2] international hostilities, [3] natural disaster, [4] crisesof faith, and [5] tribulation.

The allusion to Daniel 12:1 in Luke 13:19 may represent the use of the Daniel passage in the wayDaniel sought to have it read. That is, Daniel 12:1 may have had, for Daniel¶s original readers, acontemporary point of reference and an End time point of reference. This will become clear when we getto 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 ± î .

The preposition ± ± when used with the accusative may be translated after , in a temporalsense.113 The nuance of the temporal reference is probably general ± after the time of tribulation. It seemsobvious that Jesus has in mind the kinds of events He has been describing in Mark 13:5-23. Preciselywhen 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 û

The clause in Isaiah comes in a context of judgment . Indeed, the broader context of 13:10 isIsaiah¶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 ± ± in 13:6 and13:9. The description in Isaiah 13:9 is of terrible wrath. That is, the Day of Yahweh is characterized as . This adjective may be glossed cruel .114 When used by other prophets, most notably Jeremiah, 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 EarlyChristian 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 oneaccession Job laments that Yahweh has become to him, opposing Job by the strength of His hand [Job30:21]. Then, Yahweh uses the term in reference to Leviathan who no one is so /fierce as to opposehim [41:2]. In these two instances, seems to be associated with facing overwhelming strength.Elsewhere, is used in Jeremiah 6:23; 50:42 more fully described as without mercy. In Jeremiah 30:14, is used in tandem with the wound of an enemy.




25

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 thegodless [Isaiah 10:6], against the proud [Job 40:11]. At the same time, this side of Yahweh¶s fury can beappreciated, 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 todevastation and [2] to exterminate sinners. Any way the reader wants to take this, the picture is deadly anddreadful.

The noun glossed devastation ± ± points to some horrific or atrocious event .116 The net effectof 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 /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 theinternally 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 proclaimsthe 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 fullyappreciate 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 mostclosely related to the Isaiah 13:10 passage. The texts are thus:

Mark 13:24 Isaiah 13:10

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 ± ± and is a day of cruel wrath. The day will be one

115 Fury and burning wrath glosses . The noun translated fury ± [noun, 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 to describe the devastation of Egypt in theExodus. In one of the more powerful and spiritually compelling uses of , the Psalmist notes the kindof respect for Yahweh this is to evoke in 90:11, namely, the fear that is due You. Isaiah also uses thenoun to describe the of 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 asa godless nation [10:6]. For similar draconian images associated with , see Ezekiel 22:21, 31;Zephaniah 1:15.

The collocation burning wrath ± ± implies a wrath that utterly consumes its object. In

Numbers 25:4, leads to public executions of those who worshiped a foreign god. See also Jeremiah30:24; 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.




26

of complete destruction of those who opposed Yahweh; it will be a day in which His terrible fury isunleashed on those who defied Him. The Day of the Lord will be a day of appalling horror, culminating inthe 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 losingconsciousness.120 The basis for this emotional distress is fear , a term that describes, ³a state of severedistress aroused by intense concern for impending danger.´121 There is a second basis for this intenseemotional 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 arevery bleak indeed.

The net effect is that Luke adds the worldwide scope of human anxiety, despair, and anguish at the³astronomical 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 inIsaiah as the reference to the sun being darkened. Both are indicative of cosmic events that signal theEnd 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:

Mark 13:25 Isaiah 34:4 ì û úû î

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 ± all the

stars/host [34:4]. The point of the Isaiah text is that not only are humans judged but also the entire

119 The noun glossed acute anxiety ± ± implies a state of mental distress, involving acute

anxiety [Louw & Nida, 25.240]. BAGD, 791, translates the noun ± distress, dismay, and anguish. Insecular Greek usage, has a place in ancient Greek astrology. is used in reference to ³themisfortune indicated by unfavorable constellations´ and thus comes to mean ³anxiety 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, , ³´ by Helmut Köster, (GrandRapids: 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.




27

universe is subject to judgment. This point is confirmed by noting the opening sentence in the Hebrew textof Isaiah 34:4. The prophet says that all the host of heaven will rot ± .123 Using agricultural imagery ± as the leaf withers from the vine ± the prophet likens the judgment on the universe with the reaping of adying 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 doessignal 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 . Itwould 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 mentionsthe 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 î î

The book of Joel makes use of the Day of the Lord motif in a major way. In Joel 1:15, isnear ; in Joel 2:1, the is near and advancing ; in Joel 2:11, the is both overpowering andunendurable; in Joel 2:31, the is cosmic in nature and onset; finally, in Joel 3:14, the isassociated with the valley of the verdict . Clearly, the Joel 2:10 text is bracketed by mention of the .

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 / Day of Yahweh is near . TheHebrew adjective ± ± may be glossed close, soon in respect of time.125 The nearness in time of the / 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 / Day of Yahweh is a day of darkness and of gloom.The first noun ± ± is a figure of impending disaster .126 The second noun ± ± again 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 / 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 ± ± whatever is before it, and devours with flames ± ± everything in its path. Indeed, in 2:3, the prophet says ± nothing escapes, . In a powerful metaphor drawing upon an advancing army in Joel 2:8, the prophet says ± when arrows fall, they do not stop! Theresolve of this unstoppable foe is obvious.

Finally, the prophet underscores the unendurable nature of the / Day of Yahweh in 2:11.Joel uses a rhetorical question to forcefully underline the fact that no one can contain, endure the / Day of Yahweh ± .

123 The Hebrew term used here ± ± may 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 .




28

We may draw together the various lines from the Joel 2 context in order to appreciate its impact onMark 13:25.

To begin with, the import of the / Day of Yahweh in Joel should be taken into account. Asnoted 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 / Day of Yahweh [1:15]. To be sure, the / Day of Yahweh is not only near but it is also inevitably advancing [2:1]. Once the / 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 inMark 13:28-31. The overpowering and unendurable nature of the judgment has been a key theme throughthe 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 / Day of Yahweh on the sun,

moon and stars.

The first two responses to the four disciples¶ original question have been discussed. Beforemoving 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 onthe earth from the time period between the Incarnation to the End. The kinds of events on the earth thatwill be dominant in the human scene during this period include: [1] false Messiahs, [2] internationalhostilities, [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 / 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 theseevents as signs of the onset of the / Day of Yahweh in final judgment. Isaiah 13:9-10 foresees the / Day of Yahweh as coming with fierce cruelty and showing no mercy upon all who have defiedYahweh. Indeed, the purposes are to bring the earth to devastation and the exterminate sinners [13:9]. Thecontribution of the Isaiah 34 text in Mark 13:25 is to underscore the fact that the cosmos itself is subject tothis final judgment. Then, Jesus returns to the / 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 / Day of Yahweh. The / Day of Yahweh in Joel is near and advancing , overpowering andbeyond 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 secondresponse, 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 readin the context of 13:24 ff. That is, we read 13:26-27 as cosmic events of the E nd 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 û .128 We mayunderstand û as a self-identification concerning Jesus¶ deity and His destiny, or, moresimply, His Person and His work .

128 The phrase ± û ± 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 - û ± is used

by Jesus in Mark as a designation of His deity [Mark 2:10 (authority to forgive sins), 28 (Lord of theSabbath); 14:62 (sitting at the right hand of power)]; as a designation of His destiny [Mark 8:31 (Cross);




29

That His deity is implied in Jesus¶ use of û is clear in Mark 2:10, where Heclaims the authority to forgive sin. That Jesus applies the phrase û to His deity seemsequally clear in His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath [Mark 2:28]. Finally, the deity of Jesus is indicated inHis 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 toreinforce His deity.

The phrase is also used to communicate the work this designation of deity takes on. For, the phrase û is a designation of Jesus¶ destiny. In essence, His destiny/work is describedin two ways ± His Cross and Resurrection and His return in Judgment at the End.

It is clear that Jesus¶ self-designation, û , includes His Crucifixion and HisResurrection [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 sonof 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 toG entiles), 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 theself-designation is clear on Jesus¶ own statements regarding û . The question is: whydoes 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 ± . Jesus then warns them to saynothing 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 seemsto have interpreted the Messianic ideal in two directions. In one ideal, the Messiah was a royal messiah andwould play a key role in the liberation of Israel . As Craig Evens notes, ³Qumran¶s expectation of aconquering royal messiah [emphasis mine] is not distinctive and appears to be entirely consistent withJewish 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 ³the role of the priest and the function of the temple cultus.´131

9:9 (Resurrection), 12 (suffer), 31 (Cross and Resurrection); 10:33 (Cross and Resurrection); 10:45 (toserve as a ransom); 14:21, 41 (betrayal)]; as a designation of His coming in judgment [Mark 8:38].

129 John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler, ed., Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ³Qumran¶sMessiah: 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 SeaScrolls, ³µAnd When That One Comes¶: Aspects of Johannine Messianism,´ by Dietmar Neufeld, 120-40(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997).

130 Ibid., 146-47.




30

It would seem that, in the midst of this bifurcation of the messianic ideal, Jesus Himself chooses aself-designation that He can use for His own description of His ministry. Moreover, as we have noted, theHebrew and Aramaic designations for son of man per se are not described in terms of Death andResurrection in their Old Testament uses. We may assume that Jesus took the role of the son of man, asdepicted 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 thatHe 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 û in Mark 13 suggests that the phrasewas a self-designation that Jesus Chose Himself. He filled the content of that designation with referencesto His deity [Mark 2:10, 28; 16:62] and His destiny [Mark 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:41]. The destinythat is specified by û is Messianic in nature. Thus, the reader may understand aMessianic reference to û .

Moreover, the use of û 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 Joel2:10 all pertain to the final judgment .

We return to the Daniel 7 passage to discover exactly what the role of the was to whichJesus added His unique content, the Cross and Resurrection.

7:13c The appearance of the in 7:13b is followed by his presentation to ancient of days ± toancient 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. Thesentence affirms ± before him, they brought him near.133

131 Ibid., 148.

132 To ancient of days he came glosses . The preposition ± ± is used with spatial import, declaring that the son of man was brought up to ancient of days [KB², 1943r ], indicatinglocal direction [Rosenthal § 81]. The verb in the sentence ± [Pe¶al, perfect, 3rd, ms] ± may be glossedto come upon (with ) [KB², 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 ± [preposition with a

3rd, ms, suffix]. The preposition is used with spatial import [KB², 1967r ]; this preposition is usedespecially 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 ± [Haph¶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 . Thestem contains a causative nuance [Bauer-Leander § 76 n].




31

The language here has the sense of one who is presented before a king or deity. As Montgomerynotes, ³the 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.

7:14a The sentence is a statement of the royal dominion that is given to the son of man. The sentencereads: 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 inother 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. Inseven 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, anda kingdom.

The noun glossed dominion is a term we have also seen previously. is 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 ± ± is among a field of terms in the Hebrew Biblefor kingship, rule, supervision and dominion.138 Accordingly, when ancient of days gave the son of mandominion, he gave him rule, mastery and strength, presumably within the kingdom the son of manreceives.

There are two issues to take note of here. First, is used of both Yahweh and mankind. But,second, the use of in 7:12 concerns the loss of , followed by 7:14, where the son of man is given . There seems to be, on Yahweh¶s part, a transfer of implied between 7:12 and 7:14. The these nations once exercised is now in the hands of the son of man. The dominion and authority of the

134 Montgomery, 304.

135 See Baldwin, 143; Goldingay, 168.

136 Was given glosses ± [Pe¶il, perfect, 3rd, ms] ± and appears in Daniel twenty times. For themost 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 isdoing the giving ± wisdom to Daniel [2:21, 23], kingdoms to various recipients [2:37, 38; 5:18, 19, 28] aswell 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 - - may be glossed to rule, to make oneself master inImperial 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 - - may signifydominion, 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 /dominion [4:3, 34] and eight times of the /dominion of a man [4:22; 6:27; 7:6, 12 ( is taken

away), 26, 27].

138 See ³Kingship, rule, supervision and dominion´ in NIDOTTE .




32

aforementioned earthly kingdoms is transferred to a son of man, whom we shall soon see, is therepresentative of a new kingdom and a new humanity [7:27].139

The son of man also receives royal honor.140 Once again, as with the previous noun ± ± thenoun used here ± ± is 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 is the gift of imperial dignity or royal honor .If we take the LXX translator as a guide, the is the kind of esteem, honor, dignity and lordship that isthe attribute of either a god or a king.

It may be significant for the reader to appreciate that appears for the last time in Daniel 7:12.It is interesting to speculate that 7:12 may be the last transference of this that actually matters. In anyevent, as with /dominion, /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 isesteemed in his lordship.

Finally, the vision report adds that a kingdom was given to the son of man.141 In some contexts, points 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, may 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 in 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 4: 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 of Yahweh that is eternal [4:34; 6:27; 7:14]. Finally, it is the that is given both tothe son of man [7:14, 27b] and the saints of the Most High [7:18, 22, 27a]. This last observation paves theway for the son of man and the saints of the Most High as participants in the new .

139

See the excellent statement of D. S. Russell, Daniel , 122, on this point.140 Royal power is glossed [noun, 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 verbalform, aqru, may be rendered to be precious, to make rare, to value, to honor [William Yarchin, ³ ,´ in

NIDOTTE ]. The nominal Arabic cognate, waqr , refers to dignity, and the Ugaritic adjectival cognate, yqr ,is translated precious [Ibid.]. The Aramaic noun, , appears seven times in the Aramaic of the HebrewBible, 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. is most assuredly not the result of the efforts of political and military leaders themselves, as Daniel¶s use of in 4:30 makes abundantly clear. To be sure, after his abasement, Yahweh restores the of

Nebuchadnezzar to him; it was never Nebuchadnezzar¶s to begin with [4:36; 5:18, 20]. The LXX translator uses [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, , comes from a field of terms for what is precious, costly [Yarchin, ³ ,´ in NIDOTTE ].

141 The noun translated kingdom ± [noun, 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)].

142The noun - [noun, fm, sg,] - may be glossed kingship, sovereignty [KB², 1917r ]; kingdom,reign [Rosenthal 89]; an organized kingdom [BDB, 1100r ].




33

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 figurewith dominion, royal honor and a kingdom is for universal reverence. The reader should give attention tothe nouns ± people, nation, and language ± since this collocation of nouns appears only in Daniel in theHebrew Bible. We have seen these three previously, and their use here continues the transfer motif begunwith 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 firstnoun 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 throughlanguage. Taken as a whole, no exclusions are implied. The list describing the populace would seem to bean 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 politicalleader was that people in masse used to dread and fear in his presence.146 Syntactically, the form of theverbal 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. Thefollowing 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.

143 For the connective, waw, used to express an intention, see BDB, 1091; KB², 1862; Bauer-Leander § 70 c.

144

People, nation and language glosses . These three nouns also appear inDaniel 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.

145The first noun - [noun, 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 LXXtranslator uses i$,[a nation, people (LSJ, 480)]. The noun implies an ethnic identity based on bloodrelationships [see Daniel Block, ³Nations/Nationality: Theology,´ in NIDOTTE ]

The second noun - [noun, fm, pl, determined]% - may be glossed nation [KB², 1815r ; see alsoBDB, 1081r ]. The LXX translator uses D, [a people; i.e. , all who are called by one name (LSJ, 1030)].Daniel Block notes that may refer to a clan or a nation as descended from a common ancestry [DanielBlock, ³Nations/Nationality,´ in NIDOTTE ].

The third noun - [noun, fm, pl, determined]+ - may be glossed tongue, language, language

group, people [KB², 1909r ].146 Kept on dreading and fearing in his presence renders . Overall, the

construction uses a finite verb ± ± followed 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 ± [Pe¶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 ± [Pe¶al, participle, ms, pl] ± points more generally tothe emotion of fear [KB², 1850r ].




34

The vision reports that the intention behind investing this man with powers formerly held byearthly rulers is to replace the apprehension with pay reverence to him.147 The verb used here ± ± 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 sametime, it would seem reasonably clear that also brings along with it fear , veneration, self-denial, andtrust . R everence 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 is used in Daniel 3 of Nebuchadnezzar¶s attempt to get the three Jews to serve and worship the statue he had created. As noted atthe 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 slavishsubmission 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. Thevisionary 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 ± /everlasting ± and the relative clause ± /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 /everlasting 149 points to a quality of dominion not shared with the previous humandominions. As we have seen [Daniel 2, 5, 7], kingdoms come and go; there is nothing really fixed aboutthem. In contrast is the dominion of the son of man, for his dominion is permanent, stretching forward intime in perpetuity. As D. S. Russell notes regarding these previous human dominions:150

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 ± palhu ± 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] andnine times in Daniel [3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 6:17, 21; 7:14, 27]. The appearances in Daniel 3 and 7 haveinteresting parallel terms with . That is, the Daniel 3 passages [3:12, 14, 18, 28] use in parallel with. This particular verb ± ± has 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 [TerenceFretheim, ³,´ in NIDOTTE ]. The net effect is that the directive in 3:12 that uses implies self-denialor self-humiliation leading to obeisance. This falling and worshiping is a way of showing acquiescence tothe person of Nebuchadnezzar; it is a way of showing due regard for him through submission to hisauthority.

Finally, among the terms used to unpack the sense of in Daniel 3 is its use with the verb ± ± to place one¶s trust in another [Daniel 3:28].

In another interesting parallel, is parallel to in Daniel 7:27 in the sense of to show oneself

obedient to.The LXX translator uses [to serve, to be subject to (LSJ, 446)].

148See Slotki, 60, for the thought.

149 /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.




35

They had disappeared, the victims of enemy attack or their own internalcorruption and strife. But the coming kingdom is altogether different. Itwill 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 tovanish. Indeed, the verb may be used of that goes away or is taken away or is removed . The impliedcontrast with the preceding earthly political kingdoms is clear. For, it is these earthly political powers thatare routinely /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 inDaniel. 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 thestory. Rather, the final victory is and will be with God who establishes, with the son of man, a realm, akingdom that is permanent. This kingdom will neither vanish nor be taken away by forces beyond itscontrol. 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 kingdomsof man as noted in chapter two with the four kingdoms replacing one after another, this new kingdom existseternally.

Summary on the son of man. The context for the son of man material is 7:13-14. This passagelays 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 7:13baffirms 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 ± ± elsewhere in Daniel implies humanity [2:38; 5:21].

Moreover, the most prominent Hebrew cognate phrase ± ± is 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, thisone like a son of man possesses a humaneness that the former do not.

151 Will never pass away translates . The verb in the line ± [Pe¶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 tobe taken [KB², 1944]; BDB, 1105r , opts for to pass on, to pass away. In Imperial Aramaic and EgyptianAramaic, the verb signals to remove, to take away [KB², 1943]. Rosenthal, 92, glosses to pass away, to

become invalid. The LXX translator uses an aorist passive of the verb (8 [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]. is used inreference to Yahweh who /removes kings [2:21], who /removes the sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar [4:31; 5:20], who /removes the dominion of the three beasts [7:12], and who /removes the dominionof the small horn [7:26].

152 Never be destroyed glosses [Hithpa¶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 thatYahweh sets up and that will never be destroyed. In 6:27, Darius affirms that the kingdom of Yahweh willnever be destroyed.




36

His role. In Daniel 7:13c-d, the son of man is brought before ancient of days. As noted at thetime, before him, they brought him near is language of a royal audience. This son of man will beinvested 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 usedroutinely in chapters 1-6 of Yahweh who gives dominion to human leaders, only to have that dominionremoved. 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.

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 ismaster 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 politicaland military sense of the term to the son of man. In Daniel 7:12, the fourth beast loses his dominion and in7:14, 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 possessesimperial 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 withdignity 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 thatthe 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 andmilitary leader bestowed by Yahweh [2:37-39; 4:17], it may also be removed by Yahweh [4:31-32]. In thistransference 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. Thatis, 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 isinclusive 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 withhuman, 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,




37

this new leader, the son of man, will be venerated and then willingly served . The net effect is that the roleof 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 therise and fall of kingdoms in chapters 1-6.

First, we are told that his dominion is everlasting [7:14c]. Whatever else this means, the simplefact is that the rule, the mastery, the strength, and the kingly supervision of his realm is permanent . Incontrast 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.

As if to rhetorically underline the permanence of the dominion of the son of man, the visionaryreports 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, thedominion of the son of man is enduring.

Second, we are told that his kingdom will never be destroyed [7:14d]. The effects of hisdominion over his realm ± his kingdom ± will likewise never perish. In contrast to the instability of theshifting 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, whoserole 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 thecontext of Daniel. While there may well be overlap in the nature of the Messiah and the son of man, therole 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 terminologyavoids the Messianic overtones for Israel , appealing to a wider kingship for the son of man, ³embracing all

men [emphasis mine] who acknowledged the authority of this son of man.´153 This last point concerningthe 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 Messiahuntil Jesus Himself chooses it as His own self-designation.

The context of theMarcan use. The context of Jesus¶ use of son of man in Mark 13:26 is aquestion 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, isan 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 thatsignal the End. The evidence for viewing Mark 13:24-27 as about the End is based upon the use of OldTestament 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 Yahwehon the nations and sinners. The same may be said of the background for the next cosmic event ± the moonwill not give its light ± that is based on Isaiah 13:10, another Day of the Lord passage. The third cosmicevent ± the stars will be falling from the heavens ± is also taken from the Isaiah 34 passage. The last

153 Baldwin, 151.




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 areference to the Day of the Lord . The net effect is that all of the Old Testament citations used by Jesus inMark 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 .

0

.$ (J&$0 indicates that the phrase is used of Jesus¶ deity. In Mark 2:10, the son of man hasauthority to forgive sins; in 2:11, the son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath; and in 14:62, the son of man isviewed as sitting at the right hand of power.

In this regard, the son of man as a cipher for Jesus¶ deity does accord with the use of inDaniel 7:13b, which underscores his divine origin. However, the use of . 0 .$ (J&$0 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 . 0 .$ (J&$0 elsewhere in his Gospel is immediately impressed by how often Mark fills . 0 .$ (J&$0 with references to Jesus¶ Cross and Resurrection [Mark 8:31 (the Cross); 9:9 (theResurrection), 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 . 0 .$ (J&$0 further in terms of judgment . It

is the crucified and resurrected Lord who is destined to return as . 0 .$ (J&$0 in judgment[Mark 8:38; 14:62].

The net effect is that, in Mark, . 0 .$ (J&$0 is a self-designation that Jesuschooses to highlight His Cross, His Resurrection and His role in judgment. The question is: why doesJesus choose this self-designation? To answer this question, the reader is referred to Mark 8:29-31. It is inthis context that Jesus uses . 0 .$ (J&$0 in a Messianic sense.

In Mark 8:29, Peter makes the famous confession concerning Jesus ± You are the Christ . Jesusimmediately warns all of them to say nothing about His being 4(*.D,, 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 - 4(*.D, - with the son of man -. 0 .$ (J&$0 - He is reluctant to use the typical Messianic term due to the mistakentheology of the day concerning the Messiah. Thus, Jesus chooses a self-designation that is Messianic, butwhich He uses to fill with content concerning His destiny ± the Cross and Resurrection.

At another level, the connection between son of man/ in Daniel 7:13 and son of man/. 0 .$ (J&$0 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 sonof man/ as a self-designation that He defines His sense of royalty in terms of the Cross andResurrection. As pointed out at the time, there is nothing in the uses of the various phrases in the OldTestament translated son of man that even remotely link the phrase with suffering, death, and resurrection; J esus 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.

Documents

The Beast in Daniel 7 and the Son of Man