Tag: daniel

DANIEL 8 & HANUKKAH

In this short post I will be citing several commentaries on Daniel 8:11-14 to show its relevance to Hanukkah. All emphasis shall be mine.

af. Daniel 8:11 sn The prince of the army may refer to God (cf. “whose sanctuary” later in the verse) or to the angel Michael (cf. 12:1).

ag. Daniel 8:11 tn Or perhaps “and by him,” referring to Antiochus rather than to God.

ah. Daniel 8:11 sn Here the sanctuary is a reference to the temple of God in Jerusalem.

ai. Daniel 8:12 tc The present translation reads וּצְבָאָהּ נִתַּן (utsevaʾah nittan, “and its army was given”) for the MT וְצָבָא תִּנָּתֵן (vetsavaʾ tinnaten, “and an army was being given/will be given”). The context suggests a perfect rather than an imperfect verb.

aj. Daniel 8:12 tn Heb “in (the course of) rebellion.” The meaning of the phrase is difficult to determine. It could mean “due to rebellion,” referring to the failures of the Jews, but this is not likely since it is not a point made elsewhere in the book. The phrase more probably refers to the rebellion against God and the atrocities against the Jews epitomized by Antiochus.

ak. Daniel 8:12 tc Two medieval Hebrew mss and the LXX have a passive verb here: “truth was hurled to the ground” (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV).

al. Daniel 8:12 sn Truth here probably refers to the Torah. According to 1 Macc 1:56, Antiochus initiated destruction of the sacred books of the Jews.

am. Daniel 8:12 tn Heb “it acted and prospered.”

an. Daniel 8:13 sn The holy one referred to here is presumably an angel (cf. 4:13 [10AT], 23 [20AT]).

ao. Daniel 8:14 sn The language of evenings and mornings is reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1. Since “evening and morning” is the equivalent of a day, the reference here would be to 2,300 days. However, some interpreters understand the reference to be to the evening sacrifice and the morning sacrifice, in which case the reference would be to only 1,150 days. Either way, the event that marked the commencement of this period is unclear. The event that marked the conclusion of the period was the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem following the atrocious and sacrilegious acts that Antiochus implemented. This took place on December 25, 165 b.c. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah each year commemorates this victory.

ap. Daniel 8:14 tn Heb “will be vindicated” or “will be justified.” This is the only occurrence of this verb in the Niphal in the OT. English versions interpret it as “cleansed” (KJV, ASV), “restored” (NASB, TEV, NLT), or “reconsecrated” (NIV). (NET Bible)

11. It magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host. Note the progression, ‘magnified himself’ (4), ‘magnified himself exceedingly’ (8), until pride showed its ultimate goal in defying the Prince of both stars and monarchs, their Creator and God. This defiance took the form of a sacrilegious attack on the temple such as had taken place once already under Nebuchadrezzar. The continual burnt offering (Heb. tāmîd): ‘the continual’ is a technical term referring to the daily sacrifices, morning and evening, prescribed in Exodus 29:38–42. By the one word the whole sacrificial system is implied. The place of his sanctuary was overthrown represents a fair translation of the writer’s enigmatic style, with its ambiguous pronouns and prepositions. The word ‘place’ (mākôn) is reserved for God’s abode (cf. 1 Kgs 8:30, ‘heaven thy dwelling place’; 2 Chr. 6:2, the temple). An attack on the place set aside for worship of God is tantamount to an attack on God himself.

12. The obscurity of the first part of this verse is noted in the margin of rsv, and has puzzled translators from early times. The grammar is difficult and the sense hard to establish. The host was given over to it (Heb. ‘a host’ or army) seems to mean that the horn gained military support4 against (rather than together with) the daily sacrifices through transgression, on account of the transgression of God’s people. By a slight change of pointing and by redividing the consonants it is possible to translate ‘hosts he delivered up’, but then a verb needs to be supplied: [‘It rose up against] the continual burnt offering …’

Truth (God’s truth, that is) was cast down to the ground or, as we might say, ‘dragged in the mud’, and yet the horn not only went on with his plans but prospered.

13. In his vision the seer overheard the dialogue of two holy ones (see note on 4:10) asking not why this should be, which calls in question God’s moral ordering of events, but how long (cf. Ps. 6:3; Isa. 6:11; Zech. 1:12), which presupposes that God is limiting the triumph of evil. The rest of the verse summarizes what has gone before, though the trampling of host as well as sanctuary seems to add a further detail.

14. And he said to him is logical, and follows the ancient versions, but the Hebrew ‘to me’ may be the original. The seer was asking the same question. The answer is given in terms of the evening and morning sacrifices which would never be offered (verse 11: cf. Gen. 1:5) and by dividing this number by two the number of days can be arrived at, namely 1, 150, during which the sanctuary will be desecrated. This is less than three and a half years (cf. 7:25), a relatively short time, after which the sanctuary shall be restored, or ‘vindicated’ (Montgomery). (Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 23, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978], 175–176)

The Seleucids, 321–150 bc. Seleucus I, a Macedonian commander in Alexander’s army, took control of the province of Babylon in 321 bc; his dynasty ruled until 60 bc. The diagram includes those Seleucids who correspond to the king of the north in 11:5–39.

This horn progressed to such an extent that it affected heaven, much as the influence and power of Nebuchadnezzar had reached a point where it touched heaven (4:22 [19]) with its great arrogance. God decided to respond at that point and become involved. The heavenly armies, the heavenly beings, and the stars (8:10) refer to fierce opponents engaged in conflict both on earth and in heaven. Both earthly and heavenly realms suffer at the hands of this “small horn.” This is the genius of apocalyptic language and narrative. It reveals and ties together (earthly) history and (heavenly, spiritual) metahistory. “The glorious land” is none other than Israel (cf. 11:16, 41), God’s place of beauty reflecting the beauty of heaven. This small horn challenged God, the Commander of heaven’s army (8:11) by attacking the commanders and armies of his holy people on earth and by taking away their place of worship and daily expression of praise and worship of their God. Defeat for God’s people on earth is defeat for God’s forces in heaven. In all of this, the small horn (8:9) is like the little horn of chapter 7.

The Temple was not destroyed but cast down—that is, its function was interrupted (8:11) for a period of time. Antiochus IV did all of this (according to 1 Macc 1:41–64; 2 Macc 6:1–17; 9:1–10:9) to try to unify his kingdom as one people, with one religion, a Hellenistic cult. He saw a chance to combine the Seleucid (Syria) and Ptolemaic (Egypt) realms; others in the fourth empire of Daniel would have schemes even more grandiose (Green 2007:128). The actions of Antiochus IV parallel the themes of chapter 3 of Daniel in many ways, for there, an abominable idol was set up by the king, and everyone was forced to worship it. It is difficult to decipher 8:12; the NLT has a viable rendering (see note). Accepting this rendering, the army that was restrained is to be understood as both the earthly forces of the holy people Israel and their supportive cast in heaven. The small horn’s sin is specifically the removal of the daily sacrifice (8:11). Since the small horn succeeded, the truth of God’s law, true worship, and the proper expression of praise to God were under vicious attack, to the extent that the holy Scriptures were torn up and burned when they could be found (1 Macc 1:56–57).

Another possible rendering of 8:12 (see note) indicates that “an army was given over,” that is, permitted to be defeated for the time being during this rebellion. The rebellion, not only consisting of the actions of the small horn, would then also indicate the failure of some of God’s own people to keep his covenant. Subsequently, his wrath is poured out upon them (cf. Longman 1999:204; Collins 1993:335).

Verses 13–14 reveal that God is sovereign over all. The answer to the question of 8:13 translates into 1,115 days. The fact that two heavenly beings do the calculating makes the answer certain. During this time the Jews, the holy people, were compelled to “depart from the laws of their fathers, and to cease living by the laws of God,” and even to pollute the Temple (2 Macc 6:1–6). These events on earth brought about actions in the heavenly realm and vice versa, for God’s holy place and holy people on earth were being threatened and defiled. This period of time amounts to about three years or a little more (see note on 8:14), depending upon whether a 360-day year or a 365-day year is in mind.

Apocalyptic timing gives parameters of time that do not have to be worked out with mathematical precision. The times set by God to complete his goals are real, but are not intended to be worked out in detail so that his people can arrogantly predict the timing and events of history. They are markers of assurance and to be observed from the perspective of faith. God’s sovereignty orchestrates his plans according to his purposes. Accordingly, history records that Antiochus polluted the Temple in December (15th of Kislev), 167 bc, offering unclean sacrifices on it on the 25th of Kislev. It was cleansed and rededicated in December (25th of Kislev) three years later (cf. 1 Macc 1:54; 4:52–53; 2 Macc 10:5). (Hanukkah continues to commemorate this event; cf. John 10:22.) God had set a time when he would rescue and bring an end to the evil machinations of Antiochus IV. The word used to describe the restoration of the Temple in Daniel indicates not that it was to be rebuilt, but “set right”—i.e., made functional again. (Exactly why it must be set right will yet be revealed in 11:31; cf. 9:27.) Hence, the Temple was not physically destroyed (see note on 8:11). It is also significant to note that God’s people were not delivered en masse from this time of oppression until the end; that is, the end that extends far beyond the time of Antiochus IV. (Eugene Carpenter, “Daniel,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel & Daniel, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 9 [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2010], 413–414)

8:11 Although the “Prince” has been identified by some as the high priest Onias III, who was assassinated in 170 b.c., v. 25 calls this person the “Prince of princes,” a title that refers to God. Montgomery rightly contends, with the majority of scholars, that the “Prince” in v. 11 “can be none other than God.” Moreover, the language of this verse indicates that the Prince is no mere man.

Not only would the “horn” consider himself the Prince’s equal; he would also set himself “against” the Prince (an alternate translation of the Heb.). He felt that he and his Greek gods were above Yahweh, and he blatantly attacked Yahweh and his worshipers. For example, Antiochus insisted that the Jews refrain from following the Jewish religious laws (diet, circumcision, Sabbaths, and feasts); he desecrated Yahweh’s temple; he required allegiance to himself and the Greek gods rather than to Yahweh; and he showed disrespect to Yahweh by persecuting his followers (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–50). These were blatant offenses not only against the saints but against their God, “the Prince of the host.”

The “daily sacrifice” (Heb tāmîd, “continuity,” offerings made continually) refers to those morning and evening sacrifices the priests offered each day on behalf of the nation (cf. Exod 29:38–41; Num 28:3–8). Young argues that tāmîd is not limited to the daily sacrifices but denotes “all that is of continual, i.e., constant, permanent, use in the Temple services.” But the term is merely an abbreviated form of ʿōlat tāmîd, “a continual burnt offering” (Exod 29:42), which specifically designates the daily sacrifices. In either case the point is that temple worship would cease. In 167 b.c. Antiochus issued the order that the regular ceremonial observances to Yahweh were forbidden, and thus sacrifices ceased being offered to him (cf. 1 Macc 1:44–45).

“The place of his sanctuary” could refer to Jerusalem, but more likely it is the temple itself. “Brought low” does not mean that the temple was destroyed but that it would be desecrated (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–23, 47, 54; 2 Macc 6:2–5).

8:12 “Because of rebellion” (Heb. pešaʿ, also “revolt,” “transgression”) may allude to the sins of the Jewish people themselves that brought about divine judgment in the form of Antiochus’s persecutions, the particular acts of sin perpetrated upon Israel by Antiochus,31 or both. Probably the first alternative is correct because the books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees report that many in Israel were not faithful to their God and even adopted the idolatrous Greek religion (cf. 1 Macc 1:11–15, 43). These sins would have brought about God’s chastening in order to purify the nation.

During the three horrible years specifically in view (167–164 b.c.), the Jewish people (“the host of the saints”) were “given over” to Antiochus (the little horn) in the sense that the Syrian-Greek tyrant controlled Palestine and was able to persecute its citizens. The “daily sacrifice” would be terminated by Antiochus (cf. v. 11).

“It [the little horn, Antiochus] prospered in everything it did” reads literally, “And it acted and prospered.” The NIV’s rendering is possible, but these clauses may also mean that Antiochus would “act as he pleases and prosper” (cf. NASB). The latter understanding of the passage well describes Antiochus’s actions. For a time he held absolute power over Palestine and was successful in his military and political endeavors.

The evil dictator threw “truth … to the ground” (cf. Ezek 19:12) by repressing the true teachings (religion) of Yahweh and attempting to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, which embodied the true religion. According to 1 Macc 1:56–57: “The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the book of the covenant was found in the possession of any one, or if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death.” The satanically inspired king was endeavoring to rid the world of the Word of God as tyrants have attempted to do many times since. But as Jehoiakim discovered, one who tries to destroy the truth of God will find that he has only destroyed himself (Jer 36:20–31; cf. Dan 8:25).

8:13 Without introduction two heavenly beings suddenly appeared on the scene. Daniel “heard” an angel (“a holy one”) “speaking” (to another angel). A second angel (“holy one”) said to the one who was speaking, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled?”

The angel’s question is, How long would temple worship cease and the persecution of the saints described in Daniel’s vision continue? No services would be held in the temple because it would be defiled by Antiochus, and idols would be set up in the temple precincts. “The rebellion that causes desolation” likely alludes to the Zeus statue (or altar) set up by Antiochus in the temple and designated in 11:31 “the abomination that causes desolation.” The angel desired to know the duration of this period of desolation. Here it is demonstrated that angels are deeply interested in the affairs of God’s people.

8:14 The question also was asked for Daniel’s sake, since the answer was given to Daniel rather than the angel. Daniel was told that the desolation would last “2,300 evenings and mornings.” Most scholars believe that 2,300 evenings and mornings involve only a total of 1,150 days, since the 1,150 evening and 1,150 morning sacrifices (which would not be offered) equal a total of 2,300.33 This method of calculation results in a period that was a little more than three years. In December 167 Antiochus set up an altar (and possibly a statue) to Zeus in the temple (1 Macc 1:54), and Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 b.c. (1 Macc 4:52). According to the three-year view, the beginning date would be sometime near the setting up of this altar to Zeus, and the termination date would be the rededication of the temple; 1,150 days before December 14, 164 b.c. would fall in September/ October (Tishri) 167 b.c., whereas the altar to Zeus was set up one month and fifteen days later in December 167. Either the date is to be taken as a close approximation or, as Archer suggests, the daily sacrifice may have been abolished even before the altar was erected, a suggestion that is plausible.

On the other hand, Keil argues quite convincingly that the 2,300 evenings and mornings represent a total of 2,300 days, and many scholars follow this view.36 First, Keil points out that in the Hebrew text the phrase is literally “until evening morning, 2,300.” He then demonstrates that in Old Testament usage an evening and morning specified a day (e.g., Gen 1). Second, he shows that when the Hebrews wished to make a distinction between the two parts of a day, the number of both was given, for example, “forty days and forty nights” (Gen 7:4, 12). Third, Keil correctly observes that appeal to Dan 7:25 and 9:27 to support a period of three and one-half years here is not valid since these passages do not describe the activities of Antiochus IV. Neither does Dan 12:11–12 speak of Antiochus (see discussion at 12:11–12).

S. J. Schwantes presents additional problems with the 1,150-day view. (1) “Daily sacrifice” (tāmîd) does not appear in v. 14 at all. It is found in 8:13 and is simply assumed to be the meaning of the “evenings and mornings” in this verse. (2) The term encompassed both sacrifices offered in the morning and evening (cf. Exod 29:38–42). The word tāmîd, therefore, represents one entity, not two. Thus “2,300 evenings and mornings” denotes 2,300 days with both a morning and an evening offering. (3) When the two daily sacrifices of the tāmîd are specified, the order in the Old Testament is always morning and evening, never evening and morning. Therefore Schwantes concludes with Keil that the expression reflects usage in Gen 1 and must represent 2,300 full days.

The case for the 2,300-day view seems conclusive, indicating that the period in view covered six years and almost four months. December 164 (the reconsecration of the sanctuary) is the termination date given in the text, thus the 2,300 days began in the fall of 170 b.c. Something significant must have occurred at that time that marked the beginning of the persecution, and such an event did take place. In 170 b.c. Onias III (a former high priest) was murdered at the urging of the wicked high priest Menelaus, whom Antiochus had appointed to that position for a bribe. From this point trouble between Antiochus’s administration and the Jews began to brew (cf. 2 Macc 4:7–50). In 169 b.c. Antiochus looted the temple and murdered some of the Jewish people (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–28). The altar to Zeus was not set up until 167 b.c., but the persecution had been going on long before that event. According to the 2,300-day view, therefore, the whole persecution period (the time that the saints “will be trampled underfoot”) was involved, not just the span from the cessation of the sacrifice and the desecration of the sanctuary until the rededication of the temple.41

Verse 14 concludes by stating that after this period of persecution, the temple would be “reconsecrated.” Just over three years after the altar to Zeus was set up, Judas Maccabeus cleansed and rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 b.c. (cf. 1 Macc 4:52). Today the Jews celebrate the Feast of Hanukkah (“dedication”) to commemorate this momentous event (cf. John 10:22). (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 226–230)

FURTHER READING

A Justification of the Translation of Dan. 9:24-27 in the KJV

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 2

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

MESSIANIC TIMELINE OF DANIEL REVISITED AGAIN

Jesus as the God of Gods Revisited

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

CHRIST & THE SCAPEGOAT

Daniel’s Son of Man: YHWH’s Angel? Pt. 1

The prophet Daniel was given a remarkable vision where he saw two distinct Divine entities reigning together and forever over all the nations:

“I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire; A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened… I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14

What makes the one like the Son of Man figure so astonishing is that he rides the clouds like God does (cf. Exodus 13:21-22; 14:24-26; 33:7-11; 40:34-38; Num. 10:34; 12:4-5; Deut. 33:26; Pss. 68:4, 33-34; 104:1-2; Isa. 19:1; Nahum 1:3), receives the same worship that God receives from all nations, peoples and languages (cf. 7:27; 3:12, 14, 17-18, 28; 6:16, 20, 22), and rules for the same duration that God does (cf. 6:26; Lam. 5:21-22). Clearly, this is no created being!

Moreover, the Son of Man is depicted as having a throne alongside of the Ancient of Days, which is unlike the heavenly host whom Daniel saw. These celestial beings are all depicted as standing before God ready to serve and carry out his orders, a theme which is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:

“Then Micaiah said, ‘Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and His left. And the LORD said, “Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?” So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, “I will persuade him.” The LORD said to him, “In what way?” So he said, “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And the LORD said, “You shall persuade him and also prevail; go out and do so.” Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you.’” 2 Chronicles 18:18-22

“The LORD has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all. Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word. Bless the LORD, all you His hosts, You ministers of His, who do His pleasure.” Psalm 103:19-21

Suffice it to say, this second Divine Being whom the prophet beheld has caused quite a stir among scholars and theologians.

THE BAFFLEMENT OF LIBERAL SCHOLARS

For a long time, liberal critical scholars that reject the inspiration of Scripture have been aware that this section of Daniel presents two distinct Divine figures, seemingly modeled after the Canaanite pantheon and/or myth of pagan god El, called the “father of years,” and his son Baal, known as the “rider of the clouds.”

Suffice it to say, these scholars have grappled with the identity of the Son of Man, with some of them taking this figure to be an angel, perhaps the archangel Michael himself:

“The prevailing academic position, however, takes Daniel’s ‘one like a son of man’ to be an angelic figure, and most likely to be identified with the archangel Michael, mentioned elsewhere in Daniel (10:13, 21; 12:1). In 12:1, he is called ‘the great prince.’ That Daniel 10:16 uses the expression ‘one in human form [kidmut benei ‘adam, literally ‘in the likeness of a son of man’]’ to refer to an angel, supports the identification of ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7:13 with Michael. Daniel thus builds upon theimportance of Michael (and angels in general) during the Hellenistic period.

“Daniel’s confusing, disturbing vision of ‘one like a son of man’ who receives power can be understood to refer to a supernatural being, like an angel, and it can be understood to refer to Israel, the ‘holy nation’ (Exod 19:6)…” (Amy-Jill Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler, The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently [HarperOne, New York, NY 2020], Chapter 12: Son of Man, “In Search of the Son of Man,” pp. 398-399; bold emphasis mine)     

This imagery draws on old mythic traditions that can be traced back to the Canaanite texts from Ugarit but that are also reflected in the Hebrew Bible. In the Ugaritic myths, the Sea, Yamm, is a monster who challenges the authority of the god Baal and is crushed by him. In ancient Israel, YHWH, not Baal, is the God of life, and there are numerous allusions to a battle between him and the Sea and a monster that is called Rahab or Leviathan. According to Job 26:12-13, YHWH “stilled the sea, by his power he smote Rahab.” Isaiah 51:9-11 asks: “Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? Was it not you who dried up the sea?” In Isa 27:1 the battle is projected into the future: “On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” In this myth, which is quite different from the account of creation in Genesis but very similar to creation myths of the ancient Near East, the work of creation involves subduing the sea and killing its monsters. In Daniel 7 the beasts rise up again. The four kingdoms are portrayed as manifestations of primeval anarchy let loose upon the world.

In Dan 7:9 thrones are set up and a white-haired “Ancient of Days” appears, surrounded by thousands of servants. This figure is evidently God. It is surprising, then, when another figure appears “with the clouds of heaven.” In the Hebrew Bible, the figure who rides on the clouds is YHWH, the God of Israel (cf. Pss. 68:5; 104:3). Yet in Daniel 7 this figure is clearly subordinate to the Ancient of Days. The juxtaposition of two divine figures can be understood against the background of the Canaanite myth. There the high god was El, a venerable figure with a white beard. The young fertility god was Baal, who is called the “rider of the clouds” in the Ugaritic texts. In the Hebrew Bible, YHWH usually combines the roles of El and Baal. In Daniel 7, however, they are separated. The influence of the Canaanite mythic tradition is clearly evident in the pattern of relationships between the Ancient of Days, the rider of the clouds, and the beasts from the sea. We do not know in what form the author of Daniel 7 knew this tradition. Some of it is reflected in biblical poetry, but the author probably had sources that are no longer available to us. Of course he adapted the tradition. The rider of the clouds does not attack the Sea as Baal had attacked Yamm. The conflict is resolved by a divine judgment. And of course the Jewish author would not have identified the Ancient One and the rider of the clouds as El and Baal.

The identity of the “one like a son of man” (7:13, RSV) in its Jewish context is the most controversial issue in the book of Daniel. Traditional Christian exegesis assumed that this figure was Jesus Christ, because of the way the phrase “Son of Man” is used in the Gospels. This understanding of the figure could not have been available to Jews before the Christian era, although Daniel’s son of man was identified as messiah both in Jewish and Christian exegesis for many centuries. But there is no other reference in Daniel to a messiah (a king who would restore the kingdom of David). Over the last century or so, there have been two main interpretations of the “one like a son of man.” Many scholars assume that this figure is simply a symbol for the Jewish people. The alternate, and most satisfactory, interpretation is that he is an angel, most probably the archangel Michael, who represents the Jewish people on the heavenly level.

The argument that the “one like a son of man” is the Jewish people takes the angel’s interpretation as the point of departure. According to the interpretation, the four beasts are four kings or kingdoms. Then, “the holy ones of the Most High” will receive the kingdom. Some scholars assume that the “one like a son of man” is a symbol for the holy ones, who are then identified with the Jewish people. In the literature of this period, however, holy ones are nearly always angels. (Compare the “watcher and holy one” who announced Nebuchadnezzar’s fate in Daniel 4.) Whenever else Daniel sees a “man” in his vision, the figure turns out to be an angel (see Dan 8:15; 9:21; 12:6-7). In Daniel 10, each people has a heavenly “prince” or protector. The “prince” of Israel was the archangel Michael.

Most probably, it is Michael who is depicted as “one like a son of man” coming with the clouds of heaven. (John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible [Fortress Press, Third Edition 2018], pp. 366-368; bold emphasis mine)

The statements of this next liberal commentator highlight the struggle and bafflement that Daniel 7 has aroused in those who reject the inspiration of the Holy Bible:

“… The description compares with the coming of God to earth in, e.g., Isa 19:1; Ps. 18:9-12 [10-13]. But the figure who comes is ‘one in human likeness.’ As ben adam literally means ‘a human being’ (cf. 8:17)… bar enosh literally means a ‘human being.’ ‘Son of man’ is literalistic Semitism… In the case of ‘one like a human being’ there is no qualification, unless it lies in the preceding phrase ‘among the clouds of the heavens.’ The expression rather parallels the varied, though more complex, ke phrases in 8:15; 10:16, 18. Like the figures who appear there, the one here resembles a human being; it is not partly animal. It is not partly animal, like the sphinxes in Ezek 1. The ke does add mystery to the description, in a way appropriate to a vision. In Dan 7 the four creatures together, the fourth creature, and the one advanced in years are described without the ke; there is comparable variation within Eek 1, and it would be hazardous to infer that this was more than a matter of stylistic flexibility. The idea is not that the creatures and the one advanced in years exist, in a sense in which the human being does not, though it might be that the preposition clarified that the ‘human being’ is not actually human… Yet the humanlike figure does come in order to be invested as king (v. 14). The sovereignty he is given is like God’s own (cf. 4:3; 6:26), the rule described in the first symbolic dream (2:44-45). He is given the power Nebuchadnezzar once exercised (2:37; 5:19; cf. 6:25). In serving him, people indirectly serve God, like the foreigners pictured as serving Israel in Isa 60:7, 10; 61:6… The verses describe the appearing, presentation, and investiture of someone notable and imposing, not the exaltation of a previously lowly figure… As the animals stand for gentile kings who also represent their peoples, the humanlike figure could refer to a leader of Israel who at the same time presents Israel as a whole, as happens in some other OT passages (see Form)…

“Jewish and Christian tradition has commonly understood the humanlike figure to be the hoped for future Davidic king of Israel who would fulfill the hopes expressed in OT prophecy–the Messiah. One of the thrones mentioned in v. 9 might then be meant for him, so that the scene parallels Ps 110:1; cf. 80:17 [18]. For the Messiah to be a heavenly figure would be a novel idea; by definition, he is an earthly descendant of David. But the portrayal of him coming with the clouds of the heavens might simply signify that he comes by God’s initiative and as his gift, without suggesting that he is other than human. Psalm 2 describes the anointed king as begotten by God and installed by God without implying he is other than human. Nevertheless, if the humanlike figure is the messiah, he has a transcendent dimension. If the idea of the Messiah moves between a God pole and a human pole, this humanlike figure is at the former. Seeing the humanlike figure as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes of a coming king draws attention to links between Dan 7 and 1-6 in the latter’s focus on God’s reign. As the one whom God commissions to exercise his kingly authority, the humanlike figure fulfills the role of the anointed one, whether or not he is an earthly Davidide. Daniel 7 is concerned with God’s reign in the world rather than with God’s temple in Jerusalem–a concern of chs. 8-9. Whether or not the human figure is royal, he is not priestly. But the grounds for identifying the humanlike figure as the Davidic anointed one are circumstantial. There are no direct pointers to this idea in the text. While Daniel later refers to an anointed leader (nagid, 9:25 mashiach, 9:26), that anointed leader is not a ‘Messiah’ (see Comment).

“… In Dan 7, where the humanlike figure balances the creatures, it would not be surprising if it had both individual and corporate reference, like them (in connection with a vision, there is no need for appeal to the idea of corporate personality in this connection).   

“Describing the figure as humanlike implies a contrast over against the four animals, but it need not imply the figure is human, still less that its extra-visionary referent is human, any more than the animal figures refer to animals. In isolation from the context v. 13a would most naturally denote God himself: he characteristically appears with the clouds of the heavens (Baal’s entourage in myths) and characteristically appears humanlike (cf. Ezek 1:26). Thus the humanlike figure has been taken as a hypostatized manifestation of God like the figure of Wisdom in Prov 8, or as taking up the portrayal of God as humanlike in Ezek 1, a hypostatized image of God, embodying his lordship, or as a heavenly being with honors and powers normally predicated of God, or as standing for a divine figure who suggests the deification of Israel at the End. But it is a long step from a belief in a renewed and celestial Israel, such as the interpretive vision may envisage, to the deification of Israel, and given that the one advanced in years stands for God, it is difficult to attribute divine significance to this second figure.

“The scene’s pointers toward the unlikely [sic] conclusion that it envisages two divine beings reflect its background in mythic material concerning the installation of a junior god by a senior god, and the OT often pictures the heavens as having the same hierarchy as the ancient Near Eastern material but with the place of lesser gods being taken by the one God’s heavenly but nondivine aides. Further, humanlike figures are regularly celestial beings in subsequent visions in Daniel (8:15-16; 9:21; 10:5 [?], 16, 18; 12:6-7). Human beings over against animals in apocalypses such as 1 En. 89-90, too, suggest supernatural (but not divine) beings over against human beings. To speak of a scheme of symbolism in the apocalypses, whereby God is represented by light, fire, and cloud, celestial beings by stars or human beings, the righteous by clean animals, the wicked by unclean animals and predators, demons by hybrids, is to overschematize the presentation. But the parallels are suggestive, and they add to hints that the humanlike figure has a celestial rather than a human referent. Celestial beings other than God do not appear in or on the clouds of the heavens elsewhere in the OT; ONLY God comes on the clouds (Isa 19:1; Ps 104:3). But it then may be significant that the humanlike figure comes with/among them, not on them. Moses enters the theophanic cloud in Exod 24:18, and the cloud comes to collect Moses in Josephus (Ant 4.4.48 [4.326]; cf. Yoma 4a; Pesiq Rab. 20:4), to collect Jesus in Acts 1:9, to collect believers in 1 Thess 4:17, and to carry Israel in targums to Exod 19:4.

“The humanlike figure might thus be a celestial being who represents Israel in the heavens. Elsewhere in Dan 7 celestial beings appear simply as attendants and interpreters (vv. 10, 16), but in v. 13 one of them might have a more substantial function… He might be equated with the further unnamed awesome and mysterious man dressed in linen of 10:15-12:13, who is also described in quasi-divine terms, linking him with Michael and the Metatron of 1 Enoch, though this identification seems to explain one enigma with another. A less opaque possibility is Gabriel, though he is supremely the heavenly interpreter (8:16-26; 9:21-27), and if he appears in ch. 7, it is as the one who fulfills this role in vv. 16-23…

“The role of the humanlike figure is closer to that of Michael in 10:13, 21; 12:1. Michael (mika’el, ‘who is like God’), is an ordinary OT name (e.g., Ezra 8:8), but Michael, like Gabriel, is one of the senior celestial beings in 1 Enoch (e.g., 9:1; 20:5; 71:9). In Daniel 10-12 he is one of the supreme celestial leaders who is especially identified with Israel and is committed to standing by them and standing firm on their behalf against celestial leaders identified with other peoples. The authority he exercises in heaven parallels that bestowed on the humanlike figure in 7:14, who appears at a similar moment to the one when Michael appears in ch. 12, the moment when evil power overreaches itself and God’s final intervention comes. The Qumran War Scroll (1QM 17:5-8) promises the overthrow of the leader of the wicked kingdom as the kingdom of Michael is exalted in the midst of the gods and the realm of Israel is exalted in the midst of all flesh, though the humanlike figure is not a combatant in Dan 7 as Michael is in chs. 10-12. But this difference may reflect the fact that the present scene takes place on earth; Michael’s battles take place in the heavens. That the same celestial person could have different roles in different contexts, as would be envisaged for Michael, is indicated by the portrait of Melchizedeq in 11QMelchizedeq… ‘Even if the humanlike one is originally a collective symbol for the angels, the subsequent visions in Daniel reinterpret this figure with increasing specificity, as a leader of the host (8:11) and as Michael (10:21; 12:1).’…” (John Goldingay, Daniel (World Biblical Commentary) [Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, Revised edition 2019], Volume 30, pp. 364-370; bold and capital emphasis mine)

I will have more to say about whether Michael is the Son of Man figure in the subsequent parts of this series.

ANGELS AS MEN

The fact that the one like a Son of Man can be a reference to a specific Angel is supported from other texts in Daniel where angels are called men due to their taking on a human appearance:

“Then it happened, when I, Daniel, had seen the vision and was seeking the meaning, that suddenly there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, who called, and said, ‘Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.’ So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was afraid and fell on my face; but he said to me, ‘Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end.’” Daniel 8:15-17

“Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God, yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.” Daniel 9:20-21

“Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, ‘How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?’ Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” Daniel 12:5-7

This next one is rather interesting:

“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar. The message was true, but the appointed time was long; and he understood the message, and had understanding of the vision. In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant food, no meat or wine came into my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great terror fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. Therefore I was left alone when I saw this great vision, and no strength remained in me; for my vigor was turned to frailty in me, and I retained no strength. Yet I heard the sound of his words; and while I heard the sound of his words I was in a deep sleep on my face, with my face to the ground. Suddenly, a hand touched me, which made me tremble on my knees and on the palms of my hands. And he said to me, ‘O Daniel, man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you.’ While he was speaking this word to me, I stood trembling. Then he said to me, ‘Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words… Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.’ When he had spoken such words to me, I turned my face toward the ground and became speechless. And suddenly, one having the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke, saying to him who stood before me, ‘My lord, because of the vision my sorrows have overwhelmed me, and I have retained no strength. For how can this servant of my lord talk with you, my lord? As for me, no strength remains in me now, nor is any breath left in me.’ Then again, the one having the likeness of a man touched me and strengthened me. And he said, ‘O man greatly beloved, fear not! Peace be to you; be strong, yes, be strong!’ So when he spoke to me I was strengthened, and said, ‘Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me. Then he said, ‘Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come.’” Daniel 10:1-12, 14-20

Here Daniel sees several angels appearing as men, with one of them being described as having the likeness of the sons of men. Note that particular verse again:

“And suddenly, one having the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke, saying to him who stood before me, ‘My lord, because of the vision my sorrows have overwhelmed me, and I have retained no strength.’” Daniel 10:16

The foregoing shows that is very likely that Daniel’s “one like a Son of Man,” may in fact be an angel, specifically THE Divine Angel of YHWH. I will have more to say in respect to this point in subsequent parts of my discussion: Daniel’s Son of Man: YHWH’s Angel? Pt. 2.