The Son of Man in Daniel 7: Apocalyptic Identity and Messianic Implications
Abstract
This paper examines the theological and historical significance of Jesus' self-designation as the "Son of Man" in relation to the apocalyptic vision recorded in Daniel 7. Through analysis of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) linguistic patterns, Second Temple Jewish interpretive traditions, and New Testament theological developments, this article establishes the centrality of the Danielic vision to Jesus' self-understanding and the early Christian movement's Christology. The research investigates the semantic range of the term across various biblical and extra-biblical sources, the distinctive characteristics of the divine-human figure in Daniel's vision, Jesus' strategic application of the title across different narrative contexts in the Gospels, and the eschatological fulfillment of the Son of Man motif in the Book of Revelation. By synthesizing textual evidence with contemporary scholarly perspectives, this paper demonstrates that Jesus' intentional use of this title represented a conscious alignment with the Danielic figure, simultaneously emphasizing his human nature, divine authority, messianic identity, and eschatological role as cosmic judge. This nuanced understanding of the "Son of Man" christology provides essential insights into early Christian theological development and offers a framework for interpreting Jesus' self-conceptualization within the broader context of Jewish apocalyptic expectations and emerging Christian eschatology.
Introduction
The enigmatic title "Son of Man" stands as one of the most frequently used self-designations of Jesus in the New Testament corpus, appearing approximately 81 times across the four canonical Gospels (Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 1). Despite its prevalence in Jesus' self-referential speech, the precise meaning and significance of this title has generated considerable scholarly debate, particularly regarding its origins in the Hebrew Bible, its development within Second Temple Judaism, and its distinctive application by Jesus. The complexity of this christological title emerges not only from linguistic considerations but also from its varied contextual applications throughout Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels.
The phrase "Son of Man" (Hebrew: בֶּן־אָדָם, ben-adam; Aramaic: בַר אֱנָשׁ, bar enash; Greek: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ho huios tou anthrōpou) functions in multiple semantic registers throughout biblical literature. In many instances within the Hebrew Bible, the phrase serves as a generic reference to humanity or mortal beings, emphasizing the distinction between human frailty and divine power. However, the apocalyptic vision recorded in Daniel 7 introduces a dramatically different usage, describing a transcendent figure who "comes with the clouds of heaven" and receives "dominion and glory and a kingdom" that will never pass away (Dan. 7:13-14). This celestial, royal imagery suggests a being who transcends ordinary human limitations while maintaining human form, creating a theologically rich tension between divine authority and human identity.
The scholarly discourse surrounding the "Son of Man" title has generated multiple interpretive frameworks. Some scholars, following the tradition of Albert Schweitzer, have emphasized the eschatological dimensions of the title, viewing Jesus' use as primarily oriented toward future judgment and cosmic transformation. Others, including Geza Vermes, have argued for an Aramaic idiomatic understanding, suggesting that Jesus used the phrase simply as a circumlocution for self-reference without messianic implications. Still others, such as John Collins and Larry Hurtado, have focused on the apocalyptic dimensions of the title, connecting it firmly to Second Temple Jewish expectations of divine intervention and messianic deliverance.
Jesus' application of the "Son of Man" title to himself demonstrates remarkable theological sophistication. He employs the designation across three distinct contexts: references to his earthly ministry and authority (Mark 2:10, 2:28), predictions of his impending suffering and death (Mark 8:31, 9:31), and declarations of his future return in glory as eschatological judge (Mark 13:26, 14:62). This three-dimensional usage suggests that Jesus intentionally expanded the semantic range of the Danielic figure, incorporating elements of suffering servanthood that challenged prevailing messianic expectations while maintaining the apocalyptic vision of ultimate vindication and authority.
The significance of the "Son of Man" christology extends beyond the Gospels into the broader New Testament corpus, reaching its climactic expression in the Book of Revelation, where the exalted Christ appears with attributes that deliberately echo both the "one like a son of man" and the Ancient of Days from Daniel's vision. This remarkable theological development suggests a profound reinterpretation of monotheistic categories within early Christianity, as Jesus is portrayed as fulfilling roles traditionally reserved for God alone. This study examines the relationship between Jesus' self-designation as "Son of Man" and Daniel's apocalyptic vision through several interconnected analyses. First, we will explore the semantic range and development of the term across ANE literature, Hebrew biblical texts, and Second Temple Jewish interpretive traditions. Second, we will analyze the distinctive features of the divine-human figure in Daniel 7, considering both the immediate literary context and broader apocalyptic frameworks. Third, we will investigate Jesus' strategic application of the title to himself across different Gospel contexts, examining how he both aligns with and transforms the Danielic imagery. Finally, we will consider the eschatological fulfillment of the Son of Man Christology in Revelation, demonstrating how early Christian communities understood Jesus as the ultimate embodiment of Daniel's visionary figure.
Through this analysis, this article aims to demonstrate that Jesus' self-designation as "Son of Man" represents a conscious and sophisticated engagement with Daniel's apocalyptic vision, providing crucial insights into His self-understanding, messianic identity, and the theological foundations of early Christianity.
The Semantic Range of "Son of Man" in Ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple Jewish Contexts
Linguistic Origins and General Hebrew Usage
The phrase "son of man" emerges from fundamental Semitic linguistic patterns where compound constructions using "son of" (Hebrew: בֶּן, ben; Aramaic: בַר, bar) frequently denote characteristics, qualities, or classifications. This construction appears across numerous ANE languages, including Akkadian, Ugaritic, and various Northwest Semitic dialects, often serving to establish categorical relationships or essential qualities. Within this broader linguistic context, "son of man" primarily functions as a designation that emphasizes human nature, mortality, and the ontological distinction between humanity and divinity (Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation, 35-37).
In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase בֶּן־אָדָם (ben-adam) appears approximately 107 times, with the vast majority (93 occurrences) found in the Book of Ezekiel as a form of divine address to the prophet. This repeated designation serves to emphasize Ezekiel's human status in contrast to the transcendent glory of YHWH that features prominently in his visionary experiences. The term also appears in poetic parallelism in Numbers 23:19, where human changeability is contrasted with divine consistency: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind." Similarly, Psalm 8:4 employs the term in a contemplative reflection on human frailty and divine attention: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" In these contexts, the phrase functions primarily to highlight the ontological gap between human limitation and divine sovereignty.
Development in Wisdom and Poetic Literature
Beyond its function in prophetic literature, the "son of man" terminology develops nuanced applications in Hebrew wisdom and poetic texts. In Job 25:6, Bildad the Shuhite employs the phrase to emphasize human insignificance: "how much less man, who is but a maggot, and the son of man, who is only a worm!" This usage reinforces the wisdom tradition's persistent theme of human transience and moral inadequacy before divine judgment. Similarly, Psalm 80:17 uses the phrase in a messianic-royal context: "Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself." This association between the "son of man" and royal designation anticipates later developments in apocalyptic literature where the term takes on explicitly messianic dimensions.
Psalm 144:3 continues the reflective tradition established in Psalm 8, asking: "O LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?" This consistent poetic application emphasizes humanity's dependent relationship on divine favor and protection. Throughout these wisdom and poetic contexts, the phrase maintains its primary function of establishing human identity within a theological framework that emphasizes divine transcendence, though glimmers of royal and representative functions begin to emerge.
Transformation in Daniel 7
The apocalyptic vision recorded in Daniel 7 marks a decisive semantic shift in the usage of "son of man" terminology. Within this visionary context, the phrase "one like a son of man" (Aramaic: כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ, kebar enash) no longer primarily designates human weakness or mortality but rather introduces a transcendent figure who approaches the Ancient of Days with celestial authority. This figure, coming "with the clouds of heaven," receives "dominion and glory and kingship" that will never be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14). Several features of this description deserve careful consideration.
First, the comparative particle "like" (כְּ, ke) suggests a figure who bears human form but may not be limited to ordinary human nature. Second, the association with clouds evokes divine theophany throughout the Hebrew Bible, where cloud imagery frequently accompanies manifestations of YHWH's presence (Exodus 13:21, 19:9; 1 Kings 8:10-11). Third, the authority granted to this figure includes universal dominion over "all peoples, nations, and languages," a scope traditionally reserved for divine sovereignty in Jewish theological frameworks. Finally, the eternal nature of this kingdom contrasts sharply with the temporal, bestial kingdoms described earlier in the vision, suggesting a qualitative distinction between human political authority and this transcendent reign.
The ambiguity regarding whether this figure represents an individual or serves as a corporate symbol for "the people of the holy ones of the Most High" (Daniel 7:27) has generated considerable scholarly debate. John J. Collins argues persuasively that the original vision likely referred to an individual angelic figure, possibly Michael, who represented the heavenly counterpart to the faithful Jewish community (The Apocalyptic Imagination, 157-161). However, the reception history of this text demonstrates that by the first century CE, many Jewish interpretive traditions had developed that understood the figure as an individual messianic deliverer.
Development in Second Temple Jewish Literature
The period between the composition of Daniel and the ministry of Jesus witnessed significant development in Jewish interpretations of the "Son of Man" figure. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), dated to the late first century BCE or early first century CE, presents the most extensive pre-Christian development of Son of Man traditions. This text describes a pre-existent heavenly figure called "that Son of Man" who will act as eschatological judge, sit on a throne of glory, and reveal hidden things (1 Enoch 46:1-3, 48:2-7, 62:5-9). The Similitudes explicitly connect this figure with messianic expectations, describing him as the "Anointed One" and the "Righteous One" who will overthrow oppressive rulers and vindicate the righteous.
Similarly, 4 Ezra (also known as 2 Esdras), though composed after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, reflects interpretive traditions that may have been circulating earlier. It presents a vision of "something like the figure of a man" who rises from the sea and flies with the clouds of heaven, subsequently destroying the wicked with fire from his mouth and gathering the peaceful multitude to himself (4 Ezra 13:1-13). The interpretation provided within the text identifies this figure as "my son" whom the Most High has kept secret for many ages and who will deliver creation (4 Ezra 13:25-26, 32).
The Apocalypse of Abraham, another post-70 CE text that likely preserves earlier traditions, describes a human-like figure with features reminiscent of the Danielic Son of Man, who judges the pagan nations and vindicates Abraham's descendants. These texts demonstrate that by the first century CE, many Jewish interpretive communities had developed traditions that understood the Danielic "one like a son of man" as a messianic figure with cosmic judicial authority and eschatological significance (Casey, The Solution to the 'Son of Man' Problem, 87-93).
The Dead Sea Scrolls provide additional evidence for messianic interpretations of Daniel's vision within Second Temple Judaism. Fragment 4Q246, sometimes called the "Son of God" text, contains language reminiscent of Daniel 7, describing a figure whose "sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty." While this text does not explicitly use "Son of Man" terminology, its thematic and linguistic parallels to Daniel 7 suggest a messianic reading of the Danielic vision circulating within the Qumran community.
This diverse body of evidence indicates that by the time of Jesus' ministry, the phrase "Son of Man" had developed a semantic range that extended far beyond its earlier usage as a designation for human frailty. In apocalyptic contexts, particularly those influenced by Daniel 7, the term had acquired messianic, judicial, and transcendent connotations that would have been recognized by many within Second Temple Jewish communities. Jesus' self-application of this title would therefore have evoked specific theological and eschatological associations among his hearers, positioning his ministry within a framework of apocalyptic expectation and messianic fulfillment.
The Divine-Human Figure in Daniel's Vision: Literary and Theological Analysis
Literary Context and Structure of Daniel 7
Daniel 7 presents a carefully structured apocalyptic vision that transitions dramatically from bestial chaos to divine order. The chapter begins with Daniel's dream of four winds stirring up the great sea, from which emerge four terrifying beasts representing successive earthly kingdoms (7:1-8). This chaotic imagery gives way to a heavenly court scene where the "Ancient of Days" takes his throne amidst thousands of attendants (7:9-10). The judgment of the beasts, particularly the arrogant "little horn" of the fourth beast, provides the immediate context for the appearance of "one like a son of man" who approaches the Ancient of Days and receives eternal dominion (7:11-14).
The remainder of the chapter offers angelic interpretation of these symbols, identifying the four beasts as four kingdoms and the "holy ones of the Most High" as the recipients of the eternal kingdom (7:15-27). The literary structure creates a deliberate contrast between the beasts who rise from the chaotic sea (a symbol of disorder and anti-creation in ANE cosmology) and the human-like figure who descends from the orderly heavens. This structural opposition reinforces the theological contrast between chaotic, oppressive human empires and the divinely ordained authority of the Son of Man figure.
The chapter employs extensive apocalyptic symbolism drawn from broader ANE traditions, including zoomorphic representations of political powers and heavenly court imagery reminiscent of Ugaritic and Babylonian divine council scenes. However, these traditional elements are incorporated into a distinctively Jewish theological framework that emphasizes monotheistic sovereignty and ethical judgment. The literary sophistication of this vision suggests careful composition rather than random dream imagery, with each symbolic element contributing to an overarching theological message about divine sovereignty over human history.
The "One Like a Son of Man": Distinctive Features and Characteristics
The description of "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7:13-14 contains several distinctive features that distinguish this figure from both ordinary human beings and traditional angelophanies in Jewish literature. First, the comparative particle "like" (Aramaic: כְּ, ke) introduces an element of similitude that suggests the figure bears human form without necessarily being limited to human nature. This comparative language appears elsewhere in apocalyptic literature to describe visionary encounters with celestial beings who transcend simple categorization (Ezekiel 1:26, Revelation 1:13).
Second, the figure's approach "with the clouds of heaven" carries profound theological significance. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, clouds function as vehicles or accompaniments of divine presence, most notably in theophanic encounters such as the Sinai revelation (Exodus 19:9, 16) and the dedication of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). The prophet Isaiah describes YHWH riding on a swift cloud (Isaiah 19:1), and Psalm 104:3 portrays God making "the clouds his chariot." This cloud motif appears in multiple ANE traditions as an attribute of storm deities and sovereign gods, but Jewish tradition restricted such imagery exclusively to YHWH. The attribution of cloud-riding to the Son of Man figure therefore suggests participation in divine prerogatives that transcend ordinary human or even angelic status (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 121-123).
Third, the figure's reception of "dominion and glory and kingship" that will never be destroyed represents an eternal authority that extends over "all peoples, nations, and languages." The universal and everlasting nature of this dominion exceeds the temporal authority granted to human rulers and resembles the cosmic sovereignty attributed to YHWH throughout the Hebrew Bible. The parallel with divine authority becomes even more apparent when comparing this description with Daniel 4:34, where Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that God's "dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation."
Fourth, the judicial context of the figure's appearance—after the Ancient of Days has taken his seat of judgment and the books have been opened—associates the Son of Man with divine judgment. While the text does not explicitly state that the Son of Man participates in rendering judgment, his appearance immediately follows the condemnation of the fourth beast and precedes the interpretation that "judgment was given for the holy ones of the Most High" (7:22). This contextual placement suggests a connection between the Son of Man and the execution of divine justice against oppressive powers.
Interpretive Ambiguities: Individual or Corporate Identity?
A significant interpretive question concerns whether the "one like a son of man" represents an individual celestial being or functions as a symbol for the collective "people of the holy ones of the Most High" mentioned in 7:27. The angelic interpretation provided within the chapter emphasizes that "the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever" (7:18), which some scholars have taken as evidence that the Son of Man functions primarily as a corporate symbol for Israel.
However, several factors suggest that the original vision portrayed an individual celestial figure who represents or acts on behalf of the holy ones rather than simply symbolizing them. First, the singular pronouns and individual actions attributed to the Son of Man throughout the vision suggest a distinct personal identity. Second, the parallel structure of the vision contrasts the single human-like figure with the four beasts, which are explicitly identified as kingdoms rather than individual kings. If the beasts represent kingdoms while remaining distinct entities within the vision, the Son of Man may likewise represent the holy ones while maintaining distinct identity.
John Collins argues convincingly that the original vision portrayed an individual angelic figure, possibly Michael the archangel, who served as the heavenly counterpart or "prince" of Israel (The Apocalyptic Imagination, 157-161). This interpretation aligns with later references in Daniel to Michael as "the great prince who stands for the children of your people" (12:1) and reflects broader ANE conceptions of heavenly patrons who represent earthly nations. According to this reading, the Son of Man receives the kingdom on behalf of the holy ones whom he represents, explaining the apparent equivalence between his reception of dominion and their possession of the kingdom.
Regardless of the original intention, the reception history of Daniel 7 demonstrates that by the first century CE, many Jewish interpretive traditions understood the Son of Man as an individual messianic figure distinct from but representing the faithful community. This interpretive development provides essential context for understanding Jesus' self-application of the title.
Heavenly Court Context and Divine Authorization
The appearance of the Son of Man occurs within the specific context of a heavenly court scene where the Ancient of Days presides over countless attendants, with "the books" opened for judgment (7:9-10). This judicial setting emphasizes that the Son of Man's authority derives from divine appointment rather than independent claim or military conquest. He is "presented before" the Ancient of Days, suggesting formal introduction or legitimation within the celestial assembly.
This divine authorization contrasts sharply with the self-aggrandizing arrogance of the "little horn" who speaks "great things" (7:8, 11, 20). While the horn represents human authority claimed through violence and self-exaltation, the Son of Man exemplifies authority properly received through divine commission. This contrast establishes a theological framework where legitimate authority derives from heavenly appointment rather than earthly assertion, a theme that becomes central to Jesus' understanding of his messianic role as divinely ordained rather than politically established.
The heavenly court imagery draws upon broader ANE divine council traditions while adapting them to monotheistic Jewish theology. Unlike Ugaritic or Babylonian parallels where multiple deities deliberate together, Daniel's vision portrays a single sovereign enthroned among thousands of ministering servants. This adaptation maintains the dramatic elements of ANE throne visions while affirming exclusive divine sovereignty, creating a theological context where the Son of Man's exalted status depends entirely on the Ancient of Days' delegation of authority.
Jesus' Self-Application of the "Son of Man" Title in the Gospel Narratives
Statistical Analysis and Distribution Patterns
The phrase "Son of Man" (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) appears approximately 81 times in the canonical Gospels, with remarkable distribution patterns that suggest intentional redactional preservation. The title appears 30 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, and 12 times in John. Significantly, the title almost exclusively appears on Jesus' own lips as a self-designation, with only a handful of instances where others refer to or question the title (John 12:34). This exclusive association with Jesus' self-reference stands in striking contrast to other messianic titles such as "Son of David" or "Son of God," which frequently appear in narratorial comments or statements by other characters.
The consistent attribution of this title to Jesus across all four Gospels, including within their shared material and unique sources, strongly suggests that the historical Jesus regularly employed this self-designation during his ministry. The criterion of multiple attestation supports the authenticity of Jesus' usage, as the title appears across all major Gospel source strata, including Mark, Q material, material unique to Matthew, material unique to Luke, and Johannine traditions. Moreover, the criterion of dissimilarity further supports authenticity, as the early church rarely used "Son of Man" as a christological title outside the Gospel traditions, suggesting that this usage preserves Jesus' distinctive self-reference rather than reflecting later theological development (Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 103-107).
Functional Categories of Jesus' Usage
Jesus' application of the "Son of Man" title demonstrates remarkable theological sophistication through its varied contextual functions. Scholars have identified three primary categories of usage within the Synoptic tradition, though these categories often overlap and interact with one another:
Present Earthly Authority: In several passages, Jesus employs the title to assert his authority during his earthly ministry. In Mark 2:10, he declares that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," claiming a prerogative traditionally reserved for God alone. Similarly, in Mark 2:28, he asserts that "the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath," positioning himself as the authoritative interpreter of divine law. This category also includes references to the Son of Man's itinerant lifestyle (Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58) and his association with sinners (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34).
Predicted Suffering and Death: A second category involves Jesus' predictions of his impending rejection, suffering, and death. In Mark 8:31, the first explicit passion prediction, Jesus states that "the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." Similar predictions appear in Mark 9:31 and 10:33-34 (with parallels in Matthew and Luke), establishing a recurring pattern where Jesus explicitly connects the Son of Man title with his forthcoming suffering.
Future Glory and Judgment: The third category encompasses Jesus' references to the Son of Man's eschatological return in glory as cosmic judge. Mark 13:26-27 describes how people "will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory" who will "send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds." The most explicit connection to Daniel 7 appears in Mark 14:62, where Jesus affirms before the high priest that they will see "the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Similar eschatological applications appear throughout the Synoptic tradition, including Matthew 16:27-28, 19:28, 24:30, 25:31; Luke 12:40, 17:24, 21:27.
The Johannine tradition preserves a distinctive pattern of Son of Man references that emphasizes the themes of heavenly origin, revelation, and exaltation through crucifixion. In John 3:13, Jesus declares that "no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." John 6:62 similarly asks, "What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" These passages suggest pre-existence and heavenly origin not explicitly stated in the Synoptic traditions. Furthermore, John's Gospel uniquely connects the Son of Man's "lifting up" with the crucifixion (John 3:14, 8:28, 12:32-34), creating a theological paradox where exaltation occurs precisely through apparent defeat.
This multidimensional usage demonstrates that Jesus integrated the Danielic Son of Man figure into a comprehensive messianic self-understanding that transcended traditional expectations. By connecting heavenly authority with earthly suffering and ultimate vindication, Jesus transformed the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel 7 into a complex theological framework for interpreting his ministry, death, and resurrection.
The Decisive Revelation: Mark: 14:61-62 and Parallels
Jesus' response to the high priest during his trial, recorded in Mark 14:61-62 and parallels, represents the most explicit connection between his self-understanding as Son of Man and the Danielic vision. When asked, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" Jesus responds, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'" This declaration combines direct affirmation of messianic identity with deliberate allusion to Daniel 7:13-14, creating a composite scriptural citation that also incorporates Psalm 110:1 ("seated at the right hand of the Power").
Several aspects of this declaration merit careful analysis:
The syntactical structure establishes Jesus' messianic identity as equivalent to or expressed through his role as the Danielic Son of Man, thereby connecting two conceptual frameworks that were not necessarily linked in Second Temple Jewish expectation.
The future tense ("you will see") transforms the high priest's question about present identity into an eschatological declaration about future vindication, suggesting that Jesus' messianic role would be fully revealed only through subsequent events.
The combination of Psalm 110:1 with Daniel 7:13-14 creates a unique theological synthesis where the heavenly enthronement of the messianic king coincides with the appearance of the apocalyptic Son of Man figure.
The direct application of cloud-riding imagery to himself represents a particularly bold theological claim, as this motif had been traditionally reserved for divine theophany in Jewish tradition.
The high priest's response—tearing his clothes and declaring the statement blasphemous—indicates that he perceived Jesus' declaration as a transgressive claim to divine prerogatives rather than merely an apocalyptic expectation. This suggests that by Jesus' time, certain Jewish interpretive traditions had already recognized the Danielic Son of Man as a figure who in some sense participated in divine authority (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 245-246).
Matthew's version (26:64) softens the directness of Jesus' claim slightly by replacing Mark's unambiguous "I am" with the more ambiguous "You have said so," but maintains the essential apocalyptic declaration. Luke's account (22:67-70) restructures the exchange into a two-part interrogation that explicitly connects the "Son of Man" with the "Son of God," suggesting early Christian theological reflection on the relationship between these titles.
This trial scene serves as the climactic revelation of Jesus' self-understanding as the fulfillment of Daniel's vision. Throughout his ministry, Jesus had employed the Son of Man title in varied contexts that hinted at this connection, but here he explicitly identifies himself as the apocalyptic figure who would receive divine authority and universal dominion. This declaration provides the essential interpretive key for understanding Jesus' previous uses of the title and establishes the framework for the early church's developing christology.
Transformative Reinterpretation: Suffering and the Son of Man
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Jesus' appropriation of the Son of Man title is his consistent association of this apocalyptic figure with suffering, rejection, and death. This connection appears nowhere in Daniel 7 or subsequent Jewish interpretive traditions, which emphasized the figure's glory and authority rather than humiliation. By repeatedly predicting that the "Son of Man must suffer many things" (Mark 8:31), Jesus introduced a radical reinterpretation of the Danielic vision that transformed expectations of messianic deliverance.
The first explicit passion prediction in Mark 8:31 occurs immediately after Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah (8:29), creating a narrative juxtaposition that connects messianic identity with suffering. Jesus' rebuke of Peter's objection as "setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (8:33) suggests that this connection between apocalyptic authority and redemptive suffering reflects divine wisdom that transcends conventional human expectation.
This association between the Son of Man and suffering appears consistently throughout the Synoptic tradition, including references to rejection by religious authorities (Luke 9:22), betrayal by a close associate (Mark 14:21, 41), and being "handed over to sinners" (Matthew 26:45). The precise theological relationship between suffering and vindication emerges most clearly in Luke 24:26, where the resurrected Jesus asks, "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" This question establishes suffering as the prerequisite for glory rather than its contradiction.
By integrating motifs of suffering servanthood (possibly drawn from Isaiah 53) with the apocalyptic authority of Daniel's Son of Man, Jesus created a complex messianic self-understanding that transcended and transformed existing categories. This synthesis allowed him to simultaneously affirm traditional hopes for divine deliverance while redirecting those hopes toward his redemptive suffering and resurrection rather than political or military triumph.
Johannine Developments: Ascent, Descent, and Glorification
The Fourth Gospel presents a distinctive theological interpretation of the Son of Man tradition that emphasizes themes of heavenly origin, revelation, and paradoxical glorification through crucifixion. While maintaining connections to the Danielic vision, John's Gospel develops the concept in directions that complement rather than replicate the Synoptic presentation.
In John 1:51, Jesus' first reference to the Son of Man evokes the imagery of Jacob's ladder (Genesis 28:12), declaring that disciples will see "heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." This declaration establishes Jesus as the definitive connection between heaven and earth, the locus of divine revelation who makes possible ongoing communication between the divine and human realms.
John 3:13-14 introduces the paradoxical motifs of descent from heaven and exaltation through crucifixion: "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up." The deliberate wordplay on "lifted up" (ὑψωθῆναι) allows simultaneous reference to physical crucifixion and heavenly exaltation, creating a theological framework where Jesus' apparent defeat becomes the means of his glorification.
This Johannine paradox reaches its clearest expression in John 12:23-24, where Jesus declares that "the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" and immediately compares himself to a grain of wheat that must die to bear fruit. The subsequent crowd confusion regarding the "Son of Man" terminology (12:34) provides narrative opportunity for Jesus to connect the "lifting up" of the Son of Man explicitly with his death (12:32-33).
Through these distinctive developments, John's Gospel preserves the apocalyptic dimensions of the Son of Man tradition while emphasizing aspects not fully developed in the Synoptic accounts: pre-existence, heavenly origin, and paradoxical glorification through sacrifice. This Johannine interpretation complements the Synoptic presentation by exploring the cosmic and eternal implications of Jesus' identity as the fulfillment of Daniel's vision.
Eschatological Fulfillment: The Son of Man in the Book of Revelation
Revelation 1:12-16: Visual Depiction of the Exalted Christ
The Book of Revelation opens its visionary narrative with a striking portrayal of the exalted Christ that deliberately combines features from both the "one like a son of man" and the Ancient of Days in Daniel's vision. John describes seeing "one like the Son of Man" (ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) clothed in a long robe with a golden sash, with hair "white as white wool, white as snow," eyes "like a flame of fire," feet "like burnished bronze," and a voice "like the sound of many waters" (Revelation 1:13-15).
This composite description merges characteristics of the Danielic Son of Man with attributes of the Ancient of Days, whose hair was "like pure wool" and whose throne was "fiery flames" (Daniel 7:9). By applying features of both figures to the exalted Christ, Revelation suggests a profound theological identification between Jesus and God that transcends simple representation or delegation. The Son of Man no longer merely approaches the Ancient of Days to receive authority but now embodies divine attributes while maintaining human form.
Additional details in John's vision, including the seven stars in Christ's right hand and the sharp two-edged sword proceeding from his mouth, develop the judicial and sovereign aspects of the Son of Man figure. The stars, identified as "the angels of the seven churches" (Revelation 1:20), suggest cosmic authority over spiritual powers, while the sword represents the executing power of divine judgment through authoritative speech. This imagery reinforces the Son of Man's role as both sovereign and judge, directly fulfilling the dominion and authority granted to the Danielic figure.
The self-identification of this exalted figure as "the first and the last, and the living one" who "was dead" but is now "alive forever and ever" (Revelation 1:17-18) creates an explicit connection between the apocalyptic Son of Man, the crucified Jesus, and the eternal divine identity. This theological synthesis demonstrates how early Christian communities understood Jesus' resurrection and exaltation as the fulfillment of Daniel's vision, transforming the Son of Man from an apocalyptic expectation into a present reality experienced through visionary encounter.
Revelation 14:14-16: The Son of Man as Eschatological Judge
Revelation 14:14-16 presents another vision of "one like the Son of Man, wearing a golden crown and holding a sharp sickle" who reaps the harvest of the earth in an act of eschatological judgment. This imagery directly fulfills the judicial authority implied in Daniel's vision and explicitly developed in Jesus' eschatological discourse (Matthew 25:31-46). Several elements of this vision merit consideration.
First, the golden crown (στέφανος χρυσοῦς) symbolizes both royal authority and victorious achievement, suggesting that the Son of Man's right to judge derives from his previous triumph. This aligns with Jesus' integration of suffering and glory in his self-understanding, where vindicating exaltation follows redemptive suffering (Philippians 2:8-9).
Second, the harvest imagery draws from prophetic traditions such as Joel 3:13, where YHWH's judgment is depicted as a sickle put to the harvest when "the harvest is ripe." By positioning the Son of Man as the reaper who responds to divine command (14:15), Revelation maintains a careful balance between the Son of Man's delegated authority and divine sovereignty, reflecting the theological tension present in Jesus' own teaching.
Third, the location of this vision—following the angelic proclamation of "an eternal gospel" (14:6-7) and the fall of Babylon (14:8)—suggests that the Son of Man's judgment represents the culmination of salvation history, the definitive separation of the righteous from the wicked that follows the proclamation of the gospel to all nations (Matthew 24:14, 31).
This portrayal of the Son of Man as eschatological judge directly fulfills Jesus' predictions that "the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done" (Matthew 16:27). The consistent development of this judicial role from Daniel through Jesus' teaching to Revelation's vision demonstrates how early Christian eschatology understood Jesus' parousia as the definitive manifestation of the Son of Man's authority.
Revelation 19:11-16: The Divine Warrior and Cosmic Judge
While not explicitly employing Son of Man terminology, Revelation 19:11-16 presents a vision of Christ as divine warrior and cosmic judge that develops themes associated with the Danielic figure. The rider on a white horse, called "Faithful and True," judges with righteousness and makes war against the nations. His eyes are "like a flame of fire," echoing the description in Revelation 1:14, and from his mouth comes "a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations."
This martial imagery develops the sovereign authority granted to the Son of Man in Daniel 7, transforming the reception of "dominion and glory and kingship" into active subjugation of rebellious powers. The declaration that "he will rule them with a rod of iron" (19:15) combines the Danielic vision with Psalm 2:9, another significant messianic text, creating a comprehensive portrait of Christ's eschatological authority.
The name written on the rider—"King of kings and Lord of lords" (19:16)—represents the ultimate fulfillment of the universal dominion promised to the Son of Man, whose kingdom includes "all peoples, nations, and languages" (Daniel 7:14). This exalted title, used elsewhere in Scripture only for God (1 Timothy 6:15), demonstrates how early Christian theology developed the Son of Man tradition in explicitly divine directions, moving from functional similarity to ontological identification.
Theological Synthesis: The Son of Man and Divine Identity
The Book of Revelation presents the culmination of early Christian reflection on Jesus as the fulfillment of Daniel's Son of Man vision. Through sophisticated literary and theological development, Revelation transforms the apocalyptic expectation of a future figure into the present reality of the exalted Christ who embodies both human and divine attributes. This transformation involves several significant theological moves.
First, Revelation collapses the distinction between the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days by attributing characteristics of both figures to the exalted Christ. This visual synthesis suggests participation in divine identity that transcends mere representation or delegation, directly developing the high christology implicit in Jesus' application of divine prerogatives (cloud-riding, universal judgment) to himself.
Second, Revelation explicitly connects the Son of Man's exalted status with his previous suffering and death, reinforcing Jesus' transformative integration of apocalyptic glory with redemptive suffering. The declaration "I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever" (1:17-18) establishes the crucifixion and resurrection as the definitive events that qualify Jesus to fulfill the Danielic role.
Third, Revelation develops the judicial aspects of the Son of Man tradition through multiple images of eschatological judgment, including the harvest sickle (14:14-16) and the sharp sword (1:16, 19:15). These images fulfill Jesus' predictions of the Son of Man's return in glory to execute judgment, demonstrating how early Christian eschatology interpreted Daniel's vision through the lens of Jesus' teaching.
Finally, Revelation universalizes the scope of the Son of Man's dominion beyond the political deliverance of Israel to encompass cosmic redemption and the establishment of "a new heaven and a new earth" (21:1). This expansion reflects early Christian understanding of Jesus' messianic mission as transcending national restoration to achieve universal salvation, a development implied in Jesus' own universalizing tendencies (Matthew 8:11, 28:19).
Through these theological developments, Revelation presents the fulfillment of Daniel's vision not as a future expectation but as an accomplished reality manifested in the crucified and risen Christ. The Son of Man has already received dominion, glory, and kingship; believers already participate in his kingdom as "a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father" (1:6); and his universal rule awaits only its final consummation when "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah" (11:15).
Theological Implications for Early Christian Christology
Transcendence and Immanence: The Divine-Human Dialectic
Jesus' self-identification with the Danielic Son of Man established a profound theological dialectic between transcendence and immanence that shaped early Christian christology. By applying an apocalyptic heavenly figure to himself as a visible, tangible human being, Jesus created a conceptual framework where divine authority and human experience intersected in his person. This intersection challenged existing theological categories and catalyzed the christological reflections that would eventually culminate in the conciliar definitions of the fourth and fifth centuries.
The Son of Man tradition provided early Christians with biblical language for articulating Christ's unique status as simultaneously human and divine. The Danielic figure's human form ("one like a son of man") combined with divine prerogatives (cloud-riding, eternal dominion, universal judgment) established a scriptural precedent for understanding Jesus as fully human yet exercising divine authority. This biblical framework allowed Christian theologians to develop incarnational concepts without abandoning Jewish monotheism or embracing Greco-Roman polytheism.
Jesus' integration of suffering with the Son of Man identity further developed this dialectic by introducing vulnerability and death into the experience of a figure associated with heavenly glory. This paradoxical combination—most fully developed in the Johannine concept of the Son of Man "lifted up" in crucifixion and exaltation—established a distinctively Christian understanding of divine power manifested through apparent weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9, 13:4). The Son of Man tradition thus provided conceptual resources for the "theology of the cross" that became central to Christian soteriology.
Authority and Service: The Paradoxical Kingdom
Jesus' application of the Son of Man title across contexts of both authority and service established a paradoxical understanding of kingdom and power that transformed messianic expectations. While the Danielic vision emphasized the Son of Man's reception of dominion and authority, Jesus repeatedly associated this figure with humble service, declaring that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). This integration of sovereign authority with sacrificial service directly challenged conventional understandings of political power and established a distinctive Christian ethic of leadership.
The juxtaposition of these seemingly contradictory aspects appears most clearly in the Johannine foot-washing narrative (John 13:1-20), where Jesus performs the task of a servant precisely when "the Father had given all things into his hands" (13:3). This deliberate association between supreme authority and humble service established a pattern where the exercise of legitimate power occurs through self-giving rather than domination, directly inverting conventional power structures.
Jesus' reconfiguration of the Son of Man tradition thus provided biblical foundation for what would become a central paradox in Christian theology: true authority manifests through service, divine power operates through vulnerability, and messianic kingship establishes itself through sacrifice. This paradoxical framework transformed expectations of both divine intervention and human leadership, creating a distinctive Christian understanding of power that continues to challenge conventional political and social structures.
Present and Future: The "Already but Not Yet" Kingdom
Jesus' multidimensional application of the Son of Man title across present authority, impending suffering, and future glory established the eschatological framework often described as "inaugurated eschatology" or the "already but not yet" kingdom. By claiming present authority as the Son of Man (Mark 2:10, 28) while also predicting his future return in glory (Mark 13:26-27, 14:62), Jesus established a theological timeframe where apocalyptic fulfillment occurs progressively rather than instantaneously.
This temporal complexity resolved the apparent contradiction between apocalyptic expectations of imminent divine intervention and the continued experience of suffering and oppression. Jesus' integration of the Son of Man with suffering and death introduced an intermediate stage where messianic presence operates through redemptive suffering rather than immediate judgment, allowing for both present experience of kingdom benefits and future hope of complete fulfillment.
The Book of Revelation develops this temporal framework through its portrayal of the Son of Man as both the "one who is and who was and who is to come" (1:4) and the rider on the white horse who will bring final judgment (19:11-16). This complex temporality maintains the apocalyptic urgency of imminent divine intervention while acknowledging the historical experience of continued struggle, creating a distinctively Christian eschatology that balances present participation with future hope.
Corporate Identity: The Son of Man and the Church
While Daniel's vision contained ambiguity regarding whether the "one like a son of man" represented an individual or a collective entity, Jesus' application of the title to himself established a framework where individual and corporate identities could interrelate without contradiction. By identifying himself as the fulfillment of Daniel's vision while also promising his followers that they would "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" when the Son of Man comes in glory (Matthew 19:28), Jesus created a pattern where his followers participate in his apocalyptic authority without diminishing his unique role.
This integration of individual and corporate dimensions appears throughout early Christian literature, most notably in Paul's concept of believers as the "body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:27) and John's metaphor of the vine and branches (John 15:1-5). The Son of Man tradition provided biblical precedent for understanding Christ's relationship with the church as both representative and participatory—he represents believers before God while they participate in his authority and mission.
Revelation develops this corporate dimension through its portrayal of believers as "a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father" (1:6) who will reign with Christ (20:6). This theological framework establishes a pattern where Christ's fulfillment of the Son of Man vision extends to include his followers without diminishing his unique status, creating a distinctively Christian understanding of corporate identity and shared authority.
Conclusion
Jesus' self-designation as the "Son of Man" represents a sophisticated and transformative engagement with Daniel's apocalyptic vision. Through careful analysis of linguistic patterns, Second Temple interpretive traditions, Gospel narratives, and apocalyptic fulfillment, this study has demonstrated that Jesus consciously identified himself with the Danielic figure while radically reinterpreting its significance through the integration of suffering servanthood with apocalyptic authority.
The semantic development of "Son of Man" terminology from generic human reference to apocalyptic title provided essential context for Jesus' strategic self-designation. By the first century CE, this phrase had acquired specific associations with judgment, sovereignty, and messianic expectation based on the influential vision in Daniel 7 and subsequent interpretive traditions. Jesus' consistent application of this title to himself positioned his ministry within this apocalyptic framework while transforming expectations through his emphasis on redemptive suffering.
Jesus' multidimensional usage of the title—encompassing present authority, predicted suffering, and future glory—established a complex theological framework that transcended traditional messianic categories. By connecting the apocalyptic Son of Man with sacrificial death and subsequent vindication, Jesus created a distinctively Christian understanding of messianic fulfillment that operates through apparent defeat rather than conventional triumph. This paradoxical pattern became central to early Christian theology, shaping understandings of divine power, redemptive suffering, and eschatological hope.
The Book of Revelation presents the culmination of early Christian reflection on Jesus as the fulfillment of Daniel's vision, portraying the exalted Christ with attributes of both the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. This theological synthesis established a christological framework where Jesus' human form and divine prerogatives could be affirmed without contradiction, providing biblical foundation for the incarnational theology that would develop in subsequent centuries.
The theological implications of Jesus' identification with the Son of Man continue to shape Christian understandings of christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The paradoxical integration of authority with service, transcendence with immanence, and present reality with future hope creates a distinctive theological pattern that challenges conventional categories and offers alternative frameworks for understanding divine action and human participation in redemptive history.
This comprehensive analysis demonstrates that Jesus' self-designation as "Son of Man" represents far more than a linguistic preference or rhetorical device. It constitutes a deliberate and sophisticated theological claim that positions Jesus as the fulfillment of apocalyptic expectation while transforming that expectation through redemptive suffering and sacrificial love. Understanding this connection between Jesus and Daniel's vision provides essential insight into Jesus' self-understanding, the theological foundations of early Christianity, and the continuing significance of apocalyptic imagery for Christian faith and practice.
Bibliography
Allison, Dale C. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the 'Son of Man' Problem. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Hengel, Martin. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Owen, Paul, and David Shepherd. "Speaking Up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for 'Man' in the Time of Jesus?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 81 (2001): 81-122.
Reynolds, Benjamin E. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002.
Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1981.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
