Christology • Christianity • Advanced
Jesus' Use of Daniel 7
Primary question: When Jesus applied Daniel 7's vision of 'one like a son of man' to himself, was he claiming a unique, exalted, quasi-divine status?
Argument map
Click any node to inspect it. Expand branches to go deeper.
Common mistakes
Don't say
Assuming Daniel 7's 'son of man' straightforwardly and uncontroversially means 'the Messiah' in Second Temple Judaism.
Instead
Recognize the corporate/individual debate and cite the mediating reception history (1 Enoch, 4 Ezra) that develops but does not settle the original meaning.
Don't say
Treating Maurice Casey's Aramaic idiom hypothesis as fringe or dismissible without engagement.
Instead
Engage it directly, granting its explanatory power for generic sayings while showing its limits for Danielic-specific ones.
Don't say
Reading every New Testament 'Son of Man' occurrence as making an identical, fully titular claim.
Instead
Distinguish idiomatic self-reference from deliberate Danielic allusion sayings, which form a distinct and more theologically loaded subset.
Don't say
Assuming the trial scene blasphemy charge required Jesus pronouncing the divine name.
Instead
Understand functional or perceived blasphemy in its first-century Jewish legal and social context, following Bock's careful analysis.
What would change my mind? — Christian position
If manuscript or historical-linguistic evidence firmly established that all Danielic-specific Son of Man sayings were demonstrably late redactional additions absent from the earliest strata, the case for Jesus' deliberate self-identification with Daniel's exalted figure would be significantly undermined.
What would change my mind? — Skeptical position
If further evidence confirmed a pre-Christian, individualized, exalted reading of Daniel 7 was even more widespread and directly traceable to Jesus' own milieu than currently established, the minimalist idiomatic reconstruction would face a heavier explanatory burden.
Why does this matter?
How one reads Jesus' use of Daniel 7 bears directly on whether his self-understanding included a claim to share in divine judgment, glory, and enthronement — core building blocks of later Christological doctrine. It also serves as a case study in how apocalyptic Jewish literature developed exalted intermediary figures well before, or independent of, Christian theological interests. The debate exemplifies careful, contested historical-critical scholarship rather than a simple binary answer.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
Daniel (Hermeneia Commentary) — John J. Collins
The standard critical commentary analyzing Daniel 7's background and structure.
The Solution to the Son of Man Problem in the Sayings of Jesus — Maurice Casey
The definitive statement of the Aramaic idiom hypothesis.
The 'Son of Man' as the Son of God — Seyoon Kim
Argues for authentic Danielic self-identification by Jesus.
Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism — Darrell Bock
Detailed study of the trial scene's legal and theological context.
Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man — ed. Gabriele Boccaccini
Proceedings addressing the Similitudes' dating and Son of Man tradition.