Why The Danielic “Son Of Man” Is A Divine Being -- By: Markus Zehnder
BBR 24:3 (2014) p. 331
Why The Danielic
“Son Of Man” Is A Divine Being
University Of Basel / Evangelical Theological Faculty Leuven /
Ansgar College And Theological Seminary
This article addresses the question whether there are compelling reasons that suggest that the Son of Man as presented in the MT of Dan 7:13-14 must be a divine being, as opposed to having only symbolic, human, or angelic status. It presents nine arguments that support a divine understanding of the Son of Man and deals with one of the most important counterarguments. The investigation is located in the broader context of the question of monotheism within the Hebrew Bible and draws some conclusions concerning the theological consequences of the affirmation of the divinity of the Son of Man.
Key Words: Son of Man, Daniel, divinity, monotheism-polytheism
How is the enigmatic figure “the one like a Son of Man” in Dan 7 to be interpreted?1 Is he to be identified with the Davidic messiah understood as a human being? Is he a mere symbol of the people of God? Is he an angelic figure who belongs to the heavenly realm but is not himself divine? Or is he in fact a divine being?
In the scholarly discussion of the Son of Man, there is no agreement on how these questions should be answered. In current scholarship, a widespread view is that the Son of Man in Dan 7 has to be interpreted as a symbol for the people of God or as an angelic being.2 According to
BBR 24:3 (2014) p. 332
another view, the Son of Man has to be understood as a “Primal Man,” a Jewish variant of a cosmological myth inspired by Iranian speculation.3 There is also the view that the Son of Man has to be interpreted in terms of a Davidic messianic figure, without necessarily implying any notion of a divine status.4
It will be argued in this article that there are enough indications in the description of the Son of Man in the MT of Dan 7 that make a compelling case for interpreting him as a divine being. This view is not novel, but the collection of evidence and the line of argument that will support this claim is.5
BBR 24:3 (2014) p. 333
The Wider Context Of The Question
Click here to subscribe