Daniel 7:13
In the 7th chapter of the book of Daniel, we learn of a prophetic vision granted to Daniel. He tells us of four great beasts rising out of the sea, one after another. After describing each of the four beasts Daniel sees “one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13). Christian missionaries consider this verse to be of critical importance because it establishes the exalted nature of the Messiah. Christian missionaries believe that this verse provides the necessary support for the Christian belief that the Messiah is to be “divine”.
This is incredible! This is one of the few passages in scripture that come along with a commentary. Scripture itself explains this passage and the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 is not the Messiah – it is the people of Israel!
The scripture informs us that after Daniel had seen the vision he approaches an angel and asks for a clarification of all that he had seen (7:16). The angel replies that the four beasts represented four kingdoms, and the final dominion will be given to the “holy ones of the most high” (7:18) – a reference to the nation of Israel. The angel elaborates further by telling us that the dominion under all of the heavens is given to “the nation of holy ones of the most high” (7:27) – again a clear reference to the nation of Israel. According to the angel, each of the beasts represents a different kingdom, while the son of man in Daniel’s vision represents Israel. The Christian assertion that this passage refers to the Messiah is plainly refuted by scripture itself.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
Pingback: Response to the Line of Fire 8 | 1000 Verses
Pingback: The Applicant with 353 References | 1000 Verses
The son of man is singular but the people or Nation of Israel is plurality of man. In the entire scripture there is no such thing that it says son of man referred to the people or Nation of Israel. Therefore, it is deceived though that the people of Israel is also the son of man vice versa. The writer wants to probe that the equivalent of Israel is man and man is Israel. The Wikipedia define the word people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as “the Jewish people”, but a word man defined closely related Old English pronoun man was used just as it is in Modern German to designate “one”
• Nation may refer to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. Nation can refer to “a people, race, or tribe; …
It is likened to the system belief of Trinitarian, which the three people are equal to one person or one person is equal to three persons This Rabbi wants to added the word or term “Nation”, which cannot appeared or read in the said vision, After he said, all about the four beast, without any explanation or interpretation, of who are the four beast, he insists… and the final dominion will be given to the :holy ones of the most high”(7:17) – reference to the nation (he added the word “nation”) of Israel. How if I challenge him, that the Nation of Israel as of now is not the one mentioning here in the vision?
More than that is the notion that the son of man is the people of Israel. That is why I told the people of Israel, that their Rabbi is the fulfillment of what is written in Isaiah 3:12 NKJV…O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths.”
The son of man vs Israel. How did Jesus accept that he is the one mentioning in the vision of Prophet Daniel. In what manner He revealed that the said vision is fulfilling on Him? Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. And the reason why He said this things, because He is the one referred to as the son of man in Daniel 7:13. And when He will come again, He promised that He will execute and perform the Authority that was given on Him by His Father, written in Apocalypse 2: 26-29 NAV. And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations:27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers; as I also have received of my Father:28 and I will give him the morning star.29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. Now it will gave as the idea how it works the vision of Prophet Daniel 7:13. and therefore, I had a foundation of truth for which son of man is referred to Jesus…
Hi Rogelio,
It would be most useful if you could cite one–just one!–Scriptural passage from the Hebrew Bible to support the idea that our worship of the one true God of Israel as He revealed Himself to us at Sinai will change. Deuteronomy 4:9-20 warns us that we saw no image during that defining moment.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Answering Christian Objections to God’s own Interpretation of Daniel 7:13: “Son of Man is Singular,” “Such Language is never used of Israel elsewhere in Scripture,” “Riding on Clouds is Language everywhere else used of God” & “How could Jesus mistake Himself as the Son of Man?” – Inescapable Reality
Found here: https://newtestamentpsyopexposedandrefuted.weebly.com/home/daniel-7
Sure, when I see Jesus riding on the clouds on a white horse, I’ll believe. Until then, I will believe the Angel’s interpretation… By the way, what makes you think that it has to be a literal interpretation, I mean, do you believe the beast to be literal beast as well? Should we be scare of real beast coming just before Jesus comes on a literal cloud?
RT, Were you responding to Rogelio or me, because I agree that the Christian view is clearly wrong because it is completely out of context, ignoring the angel’s interpretation.
I misunderstood your comment. My apology 🙂
No worries, mate.
How do we understand the Gemora in Sanhedrin 98a about this verse?
Shaya Here is what I wrote concerning this in a footnote on Contra Brown – I hope you find it helpful –
Missionaries point to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) and to various Jewish commentators (e.g.Rashi) who seem to identify the son of man as the Messiah. This is hypocrisy. Imagine if the tables were turned and the scripture were to identify the son of man as Messiah and the Jewish commentators would identify the son of man with Israel. The missionaries would spare no scorn and ridicule against the Rabbis to uphold the plain meaning of scripture. But when the plain meaning of scripture does not fit their agenda – suddenly the Rabbis become authorities whose opinion must be accepted.
In any case, we must bear in mind that the word “Messiah” means one thing to the Jewish commentators and something entirely different to the Christian missionary. This verse speaks of honor and service rendered to the people of Israel as the angel explained. The Jewish commentators saw the Messiah as a human leader of Israel. One way to render honor to Israel would be to honor the office of the leadership of Israel. According to the Christian interpretation of this verse, the honor coming to Jesus is not coming to him in capacity of leader of Israel, but in capacity of his alleged divine nature.
An analogy to this would be when one renders honor to the president of the United States. It is possible to honor him because of his office as the leader of a country, and it is possible to honor him because of some personal qualities he may possess. The difference between these two types of honor in the context of this verse in Daniel, is that one violates the plain meaning of the verse and one upholds it. The same commentators who saw Messiah in the context of this verse, saw Israel there as well (e.g. see Rashi’s comments of verse 14). But when the Christian explains the verse in terms of the alleged divinity of Jesus, the nation of Israel is out of the picture.
** ******
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
So are you saying that the Gemora is not really talking about a contradiction in the way Moshiach will come, but is actually talking about a contradiction in the nature of the redemption of Israel? If so, does this mean that R’ Steinstaltz is wrong in his peirush and has misunderstood the Gemora?
Shaya I don’t have Rabbi Steinstaltz’s peirush so I can’t comment on it.
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Sanhedrin.98a.13?lang=bi
Shaya
I think that Steinzaltz could be reading it like I am – he uses the words “behadar, l’maala miderech hateva” in other words we are not talking about literal clouds – we are talking about the general scheme
Pingback: Responding to the Missionary Proof-texts | The "Proof-texts" – a project of Judaism Resourc
Pingback: RESPONDING TO THE MISSIONARY PROOF-TEXTS by Rabbi Blumenthal | Noach ben Avraham
Pingback: Daniel | Judaism Resources
Pingback: The Real Jewish Messiah – part 3; Notes | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Rabbi, since Hashem is unseen, why do so many of the patriarchs ask questions like “Have I yet seen him?”
Hagar, Manoah, Gideon, Jacob, etc. ? They all seem to know as fact that “no man can see G-d,” but then they ask confused questions like “have I?” and behave as if they have indeed seen. What do you make of it?
Why does the author put ambiguous reactions into the reactions of patriarchs and matriarchs when we know they didn’t see?
Concerned Reader In the book of Daniel we see that seeing an angel is a frightening experience (10:7,8). These people all saw angels which are generally not seen but can be seen, and sometimes the sight can be frightening. These texts were not written as a theological dictionary on angels or other heavenly entities so the author does not bend his literary flourish in order to avoid ambiguity.
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
So texts like Genesis 32:30 can be translated as questions, like, “Have I seen God face to face? But my life has been preserved.” If that indeed is the case, that would explain a lot for sure.
We translate the text in Genesis 32:31 (in the Jewish version) as “angel.” See Hosea 12:4-5.
I’ve seen that translation before. But are there any other examples in the Hebrew Bible where the plural ‘elohim’ is used in reference to malakhim, especially a singular malak?
Hosea is one. Here is another, where elohim is actually used to refer to a person:
Exodus 4:16
Thank you. But that is human magistrates. And I’m looking for angelic beings being called elohim besides the two passages that deal with the Jacob wrestling incident. Because recently I couldn’t seem to find any.
Inescapable Reality,
I don’t know of any more examples off the top of my head. I don’t know if there even are any. However, the Tetragrammaton (God’s ineffable four-letter name) is also used interchangeably with the angel bearing God’s message, as in Genesis 16 and 18.
Hope that helps!
I appreciate your interpretation of this verse but how can israel receive worship from people of all languages, Can people receive worship? It says that the son of man will receive worship from people.
It’s true that the Angel said that the SAINTS will receive power but on the next verse it says HIS kingdom will be everlasting and all rulers will worship HIM and obey him. It’s talking about a singular person.
**Kalkidan Shibeshi The saints are described as the nation of holy exalted ones – they are spoken of as a nation – a singular entity. The word for “worship” is “serve” which could apply to humans as in Isaiah 60:12
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >